This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] New regressions as of 2003-11-04
- From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
- To: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Zdenek Dvorak <rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz>,Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>,Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>,"gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 12:21:58 -0500
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] New regressions as of 2003-11-04
- References: <1067956749.23315.3.camel@frodo.toronto.redhat.com>
On Nov 4, 2003, at 9:39 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20030907-1.c
This one seems to be optimized better than it expects to be.
The whole switch is now removed, so there is no abort now.
So the test should be updated so that we don't regress back to having
an abort.
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20030814-4.c scan-tree-dump-times set = -1 0
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20030814-5.c scan-tree-dump-times set = -1 0
These look legitimate. set = -1 is back in the end result.
FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/920507-1.c (test for errors
FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/920507-1.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/920507-1.c (test for errors
FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/920507-1.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/920507-1.c (test for errors
FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/920507-1.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/920507-1.c (test for errors
FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/920507-1.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/920507-1.c (test for errors
FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/920507-1.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/920507-1.c (test for errors
FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/920507-1.c (test for excess errors)
These report ../../gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/noncompile/920507-1.c:3:
error: invalid register name `unknown_register' for register variable
Which is what it seems to be expecting. I'm not sure what it thinks the
excess errors are.