This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: [tree-ssa] Another bootstrap failure. Branch is now closed.

From: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>
To: Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
Cc: Zdenek Dvorak <rakdver at atrey dot karlin dot mff dot cuni dot cz>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 13:11:20 -0800
Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] Another bootstrap failure. Branch is now closed.
References: <1068395200.18064.27.camel@frodo.toronto.redhat.com> <20031109174219.GC11483@kam.mff.cuni.cz>

On Nov 9, 2003, at 09:42, Jan Hubicka wrote:

Sorry for the failures.  None of those showed up on i386 bootstraps we
use for testing.  I wonder why the failures are getting so architecture
specific nature when the tree-ssa should not differ much.

The PPC failure was not really target specific as shown by my testcase, just for x86 CLZ_DEFINED_VALUE_AT_ZERO or CTZ_DEFINED_VALUE_AT_ZERO are not defined for it so you would not see the problem. I am going to add the testcase to the testsuite so that if you run the testsuite, there should be no regressions like this one.


Thanks,
Andrew Pinski

References:
- [tree-ssa] Another bootstrap failure. Branch is now closed.
  - From: Diego Novillo
- Re: [tree-ssa] Another bootstrap failure. Branch is now closed.
  - From: Jan Hubicka

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