Hi Paolo, On 9 Aug 2013, at 16:47, Paolo Carlini wrote: > On 08/09/2013 05:22 PM, David Edelsohn wrote: >> Exactly. What is the common factor on AIX, Darwin and Solaris that is >> different from Linux? A difference in system types? How can we help? > Thanks David, all, for your kind offers. > > As I said the issue is weird, I think the only way in practice to make > progress is very serious debugging on AIX and either Darwin or Solaris. Note > that AIX and Darwin are already different: on the latter only the second new > subtest fails, that for Foo2, on AIX both. > > For the time being I decided to revert the patch, otherwise the issue only > makes me nervous. If somebody has insights, basing on my original analysis > here maybe: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-08/msg00239.html > > I would be glad to work again on the issue at a later time, in say a week or > two. At the moment my TODO list is already full.
On Darwin, a couple more data points [current head, appears independent of build - i.e. stage1 built -O0 -g3 behaves the same as bootstrapped] we accept when ints < 3, we also accept when >= 4 (at least up to 15). I.E. ACAICT, the specific case triggering this is num-int == 3. If the name of the typedef is changed to Baz, we accept (maybe obvious, but checked anyway). Trying to think of things that could cause this... I wonder if this is some weird corner-case in name hashing? Iain
