Okay, i isolated the problem (we are folding based on the wrong type for constants, so we have a case where 1 << 63 becomes 0 instead of a very large value). Working on a patch now.
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi, >>> >>> This is likely to have been my patch. >>> I'm minimizing the check_construct_destroy failure right now. >>> If someone could give me some idea of what is causing the execution >>> failures while i do that, i may be able to fix them faster :) >>> >> >> Thanks for fixing the check_construct_destroy problem. >> >> I would suggest concentrating next on the vector/bool failure, which is >> about a standard feature, not an extension. Frankly, I don't have any >> special advice, the testcase is pretty straightforward... > > Working on it now :) >
