David Daney writes:
>> I was hoping that 4.2.0 would be good, but very recently someone
> >> broke it. Don't people test for regressions before committing?
> > According to the testresults list, this broke between r124328 and
> > r124356. There were two commits to the branch in that interval. I
> > leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine which could have
> > precipitated this problem.
> >
> > $ svn log -r 124328:124356
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > r124331 | jsm28 | 2007-05-01 10:39:16 -0700 (Tue, 01 May 2007) | 2 lines
> >
> > * config/rs6000/libgcc-ppc-glibc.ver (__gcc_qgt): Fix typo.
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > r124338 | ian | 2007-05-01 12:23:47 -0700 (Tue, 01 May 2007) | 13 lines
> >
> > PR tree-optimization/31739
> > * tree-vrp.c (vrp_val_is_max): New static function.
> > (vrp_val_is_min): New static function.
> > (set_value_range_to_value): Use TYPE_{MAX,MIN}_VALUE rather than
> > copying the node.
> > (set_value_range): Use vrp_val_is_{max,min}.
> > (extract_range_from_assert): Likewise.
> > (extract_range_from_binary_expr): Likewise.
> > (extract_range_from_unary_expr): Likewise.
> > (dump_value_range, vrp_meet): Likewise.
> > (vrp_visit_phi_node): Likewise.
> > * tree.c (build_distinct_type_copy): Revert change of 2007-04-27.
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > I will build x86_64-pc-linux-gnu before and after r124338
> >
> This is now: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31842
According to
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-05/msg00132.html, this bug
isn't manifested on x86_64, either. So, I have no hardware on which I
can test the problem today.
Ian, a clue: The Java test that's failing makes sure that a divide
overflow trap is caught and turned into the correct exception.
Andrew.
