This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PR 8146
- From: "H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- To: Joe Buck <jbuck at synopsys dot com>
- Cc: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>,Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at libertysurf dot fr>,Greg Schafer <gschafer at zip dot com dot au>,Zack Weinberg <zack at codesourcery dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 19:26:44 -0800
- Subject: Re: PR 8146
- References: <20021106172919.A24651@lucon.org> <200211070144.gA71iHX24649@piper.synopsys.com>
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 05:44:17PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
> >
> > 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
Please provide more info.
>
> 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).
20021105 works fine for me. I reported my test result.
>
> It's possible that I've made some mistake here, but I think that your
> patch may be causing this regression. Could you check?
I am doing that now.
H.J.