[tree-ssa] Regressions vs mainline (2004-05-07)

[Richard Henderson]

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~