This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Recent libstdc++ build failure in hashtable_policy.h on alpha, r201522

From: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>
To: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com>
Cc: "gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org, François Dumont <frs dot dumont at gmail dot com>
Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2013 11:53:12 +0200
Subject: Re: Recent libstdc++ build failure in hashtable_policy.h on alpha, r201522
References: <CAFULd4a+bs=910OPobMOdoqjEcJD8WeaZoOrA5EgmkSyv0QWbg at mail dot gmail dot com> <5200C300 dot 5090009 at oracle dot com> <CAFULd4aSJk8Dc7knqULi53CTU48kvpktF12ypknnf6+Gqyqszw at mail dot gmail dot com>

On 08/06/2013 11:40 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:

On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com> wrote:

Recent build failure on alpha-linux-gnu (r201522)

Uros, please revert it, thanks, we don't have the time to seriously look
into it now.

Francois, please be more careful with testing, it's the second time in a few
days.

It looks I wasn't clear enough: I found the regression when I built
revision r201522.

Well r201522 corresponds to a serious change in exactly that code. Ithought it was clear. And of course we all bootstrapped on x86_64-linuxthe recent revisions, immediately before that one.


I recommend reverting.

Thanks,
Paolo.

References:
- Recent libstdc++ build failure in hashtable_policy.h on alpha, r201522
  - From: Uros Bizjak
- Re: Recent libstdc++ build failure in hashtable_policy.h on alpha, r201522
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: Recent libstdc++ build failure in hashtable_policy.h on alpha, r201522
  - From: Uros Bizjak

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]