------- Comment #5 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-21 13:28 ------- (In reply to comment #4) > Same thing here on i686-apple-darwin9.
But was the failures you see too introduced with r139233? I can't tell myself because I see no test-results for i686-apple-darwin on gcc-testresults@ (hint hint). > FAIL: gcc.dg/weak/weak-1.c scan-assembler weak[^ \t]*[ \t]_?j > FAIL: gcc.dg/weak/weak-12.c scan-assembler weak[^ \t]*[ \t]_?foo > FAIL: gcc.dg/weak/weak-2.c scan-assembler weak[^ \t]*[ \t]_?ffoo1a > FAIL: gcc.dg/weak/weak-2.c scan-assembler weak[^ \t]*[ \t]_?ffoo1b > FAIL: gcc.dg/weak/weak-2.c scan-assembler weak[^ \t]*[ \t]_?ffoo1c > FAIL: gcc.dg/weak/weak-2.c scan-assembler weak[^ \t]*[ \t]_?ffoo1e > FAIL: gcc.dg/weak/weak-4.c scan-assembler weak[^ \t]*[ \t]_?vfoo1a > FAIL: gcc.dg/weak/weak-4.c scan-assembler weak[^ \t]*[ \t]_?vfoo1b > FAIL: gcc.dg/weak/weak-4.c scan-assembler weak[^ \t]*[ \t]_?vfoo1c If not, given the failures, I'd guess you're looking at a different bug. (Please open a separate PR, this one will cover just the weak-related bug matching the original description.) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37170
