This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] Regressions vs mainline (2004-05-07)
- From: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- To: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>, Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 13:56:33 -0700
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] Regressions vs mainline (2004-05-07)
- References: <1083960280.3285.46.camel@localhost.localdomain>
On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 04:04:41PM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/dwarf-die7.c scan-assembler 1.*DW_AT_inline
>
> The dwarf2 regression may be related to one of the PRs opened by
> mec (PR 14048, PR 14049). I do not know yet whether it's
> reasonable to wait after the merge to fix this one (rth?).
Dunno, havn't looked.
> FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.brendan/crash13.C (test for errors
> FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.bugs/900205_03.C (test for errors
> FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.bugs/900205_03.C (test for errors
> FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.bugs/900205_03.C (test for errors
> FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.bugs/900205_03.C (test for errors
> FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.law/friend5.C (test for errors
> FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.law/friend5.C (test for errors
> FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.mike/p646.C (test for warnings
> FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.mike/p646.C (test for warnings
> FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.mike/p646.C (test for warnings
> FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.mike/p646.C (test for warnings
> FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.mike/p646.C (test for warnings
>
> These are diagnostics that are either not emitted or at
> different lines. Jason, are they fixable pre-merge?
These all require either CFG or SSA at -O0, as that's how the
warning code has been rewritten.
> FAIL: Array_3 execution - gij test
>
> In [link] aph says that it's a C++ bug. We are generating bad
> EH code. rth?
Looking at this now.
r~