real.c patch comments?
John David Anglin
Sun Jun 23 11:59:00 GMT 2002
> > I'm going to run these tests today. I've completed the before tests.
> It does seem to improve things. (look at gcc-testresults to see
> the two runs). Though it's hard to tell with g++ because cc1plus
> is emitting this for main routines that don't have a return value:
> movl $1,%r0
> which causes a non-zero status to be returned. i386 and powerpc
> return a 0. Any idea why VAX gets a 1 instead of 0? [1 would be
> success under VMS but I hope that isn't the reason why.]
No. This doesn't happen with 3.0.
I had a bootstrap failure in stage2 in my most recent build compiling
real.c. The preprocessor incorrectly processed the file resulting in
NANS being defined. DEC is 1, so this shouldn't have happened. I was
testing a couple of patches so I decided to redo the bootstrap. I would
suspect that there are still problems with casesi but it could be
The was a patch affecting returns on 2001-08-09.
Can you dump the rtl with "-da"? This might provide some clues.
J. David Anglin email@example.com
National Research Council of Canada (613) 990-0752 (FAX: 952-6605)
More information about the Gcc-patches