This is the mail archive of the
gcc-regression@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: new FAILs on HEAD
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Roger Sayle <roger at eyesopen dot com>
- Cc: gcc at ds217-115-141-84 dot dedicated dot hosteurope dot de, gcc-regression at gcc dot gnu dot org, nathan at codesourcery dot com, pcarlini at suse dot de
- Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 08:26:55 -0800
- Subject: Re: new FAILs on HEAD
- Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0312300715480.3787-100000@www.eyesopen.com>
- Reply-to: mark at codesourcery dot com
On Tue, 2003-12-30 at 06:21, Roger Sayle wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 gcc@ds217-115-141-84.dedicated.hosteurope.de wrote:
> > If you directly receive this mail, your name is tagged to one of the
> > ChangeLog entries. A copy is also mailed to gcc-regressions.
> >
> > These new FAILs
> >
> > FAIL: 23_containers/bitset/cons/1.cc (test for excess errors)
> > FAIL: 23_containers/bitset/test/1.cc (test for excess errors)
> >
> > were caused by one of the following checkins
>
> My apologies again. I've now posted a patch to address these
> regressions. My sincere apologies for somehow missing these new
> failures during testing.
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2003-12/msg02266.html
That patch is OK.
Also, note that doing "TREE_TYPE (x) == TREE_TYPE (y)" in the middle end
is almost always wrong. When typedefs are in play, that test will fail,
even though the types are "the same type" from the point of view of any
optimization, etc.
--
Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
CodeSourcery, LLC