This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: [PATCH] PR optimization/13472

From: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at libertysurf dot fr>
To: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk>
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 06:56:23 +0100
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR optimization/13472
References: <200312231919.36860.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0312232141310.6610@digraph.localnet>

> The most relevant testcases are gcc.dg/c9[09]-const-expr-3.c.  Using
> -pedantic on those testcases gets rid of four out of seven of the expected
> failures. Does your patch bring back any of those failures with -pedantic?

Yes, it does.  The log file shows 7 XFAILs for both testcases with -pedantic.

-- 
Eric Botcazou

References:
- [PATCH] PR optimization/13472
  - From: Eric Botcazou
- Re: [PATCH] PR optimization/13472
  - From: Joseph S. Myers

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