On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 12:52:04AM -0700, Sharad Singhai wrote: > On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Sharad Singhai <sing...@google.com> wrote: > > Hi Jakub, > > > > My -fopt-info pass filtering patch > > (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg02704.html) is being > > reviewed and I hope to get this in by Nov. 5 for inclusion in gcc > > 4.8.0. > > I just committed -fopt-info pass filtering patch as r193061.
How was that change tested? I'm seeing thousands of new UNRESOLVED failures, of the form: spawn -ignore SIGHUP /usr/src/gcc/obj415/gcc/xgcc -B/usr/src/gcc/obj415/gcc/ /usr/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/branch-cost1.c -fno-diagnostics-show-caret -O2 -fdump-tree-gimple -mbranch-cost=0 -S -o branch-cost1.s PASS: gcc.target/i386/branch-cost1.c (test for excess errors) gcc.target/i386/branch-cost1.c: dump file does not exist UNRESOLVED: gcc.target/i386/branch-cost1.c scan-tree-dump-times gimple "if " 2 gcc.target/i386/branch-cost1.c: dump file does not exist UNRESOLVED: gcc.target/i386/branch-cost1.c scan-tree-dump-not gimple " & " See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-11/msg00033.html or http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-11/msg00034.html, compare that to http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-11/msg00025.html or http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-11/msg00026.html The difference is just your patch and unrelated sh backend change. Jakub
