This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [C++ Patch / RFC] PR 46206
- From: Iain Sandoe <iain at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>
- Cc: David Edelsohn <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>, Dominique Dhumieres <dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 12:04:48 +0100
- Subject: Re: [C++ Patch / RFC] PR 46206
- References: <20130809105250 dot 85B7D3BE1E at mailhost dot lps dot ens dot fr> <5204CEB1 dot 8010605 at oracle dot com> <2443FCF9-FC46-4D74-91B2-CF1FAE69CD8B at codesourcery dot com> <CAGWvnyk1GevoCi5DDQzoxJB7L=DsfaBZnDPZKUzCyHcwhV2oJA at mail dot gmail dot com> <52050EF8 dot 5050705 at oracle dot com>
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:
> 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?