This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PR 8146
- From: Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot com>
- To: hjl at lucon dot org (H. J. Lu)
- Cc: Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM (Joe Buck), ebotcazou at libertysurf dot fr (Eric Botcazou), gschafer at zip dot com dot au (Greg Schafer), zack at codesourcery dot com (Zack Weinberg), gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 17:44:17 -0800 (PST)
- Subject: Re: PR 8146
>
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 05:24:03PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
> > HJ writes:
> >
> > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-08/msg01170.html
> > >
> > > fixes 5351 and 7591.
I wrote:
> > I have confirmed this; the patch works. However, it doesn't have
> > an effect on 8146.
However, I am seeing a new failure:
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/rbug.c execution, -O1
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/rbug.c execution, -O2
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/rbug.c execution, -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/rbug.c execution, -O3 -g
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/rbug.c execution, -Os
Unfortunately there is a complication: for the two testsuite runs I'm
comparing, the first is 20021105, the second is 20021106. However,
it seems there are no relevant changes (I see one new patch to xtensa
support and that's it).
It's possible that I've made some mistake here, but I think that your
patch may be causing this regression. Could you check?