-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 02/07/11 12:47, Joel Sherrill wrote: > On 02/07/2011 01:46 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 02/07/11 11:51, Joel Sherrill wrote: >>>> On 02/07/2011 09:32 AM, Jeff Law wrote: >>>> On 02/02/11 07:19, Joel Sherrill wrote: >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In the past few days, something has regressed >>>>>>> on the sparc. Revision 169143 only had 699 failures >>>>>>> and ~100 of those were LTO related. David Korn's >>>>>>> patch seems to have resolved those. Revision 169504 >>>>>>> has 2231 failures. >>>> Were you able to test whether or not the ira-costs.c patch was the cause >>>> of these problems? It's been problematical elsewhere and it wouldn't >>>> take much more than a nudge to for me to pull it given its ability to >>>> uncover latent problems. >>>> >>>>> This is for revision 169231. So it looks like that caused >>>>> the failures. > OK. I'm going to take a looksie. As long as it isn't something I've > already fixed or some dumb bug elsewhere, the plan is to pull the > ira-costs patch and revisit it in stage1. > >> If you need me to test something, just yell. Will do.
What's the best way to test the sparc-rtems target? Do you use a sim? I've got access to sparcs via the gcc buildfarm, but that's about it. jeff -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNUWJ+AAoJEBRtltQi2kC7+O8H/1+yMvSFGmdw1u1QlNLFb2DD 95bHWso3hpYXnwHr/QJV17UGWwwfRYCETmG3WHAYeqEZ3qO+/8hHlXeJ+m58u2Fw vyMDHSscw5gWFs/jKnZQj0xtEibTRSQtzug+HPR1YxKiB93xEDZfa7aV/hmBX/2z Oo8SffAa5vulyzC3FHZzz4Esgr6GEdL3aJbXT7QiyI0FZNrZ/WXUz9ejaTCNqrDu U1HMLLORt3x8XBAEcO/ktX16YyJHlvDZaTOXYr5+4Bnb/YXT6eufYaelHZwoUL/g ypRlMMN8lnq0gVuxT5etha7hatUIR5EEEjR2RwL++3MmbUHue/Oa5HqwEC46zmQ= =PAIv -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
