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: [C++ Patch / RFC] PR 46206


Hi Paolo,

On 9 Aug 2013, at 16:47, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> On 08/09/2013 05:22 PM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>> Exactly. What is the common factor on AIX, Darwin and Solaris that is different from Linux? A difference in system types? How can we help? 
> Thanks David, all, for your kind offers.
> 
> As I said the issue is weird, I think the only way in practice to make progress is very serious debugging on AIX and either Darwin or Solaris. Note that AIX and Darwin are already different: on the latter only the second new subtest fails, that for Foo2, on AIX both.
> 
> For the time being I decided to revert the patch, otherwise the issue only makes me nervous. If somebody has insights, basing on my original analysis here maybe:
> 
>    http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-08/msg00239.html
> 
> I would be glad to work again on the issue at a later time, in say a week or two. At the moment my TODO list is already full.

On Darwin, a couple more data points 
[current head, appears independent of build - i.e. stage1 built -O0 -g3 behaves the same as bootstrapped]

we accept when ints < 3,
we also accept when >= 4 (at least up to 15).
I.E. ACAICT, the specific case triggering this is num-int == 3.

If the name of the typedef is changed to Baz, we accept (maybe obvious, but checked anyway).

Trying to think of things that could cause this...
I wonder if this is some weird corner-case in name hashing?
Iain


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