Laurent GUERBY wrote:
On Fri, 2008-04-04 at 15:07 -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote:
Beyond those, I am left with:
All targets had the following three failures:
c64005c - "WRONG ITERATIVE TRACE LENGTH."
c64005d - "WRONG ITERATIVE TRACE LENGTH."
c953002
On Sat, 5 Apr 2008, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> > Is this problem reproducible with a cross-compiler?
>
> Yes, it's m32c-elf
>
> > Can you open a bug-report and attach pre-processed source in that
> > case?
>
> It's trying to cross-build libiberty, so just building shows the bug.
> http://gcc.gnu.or
> Is this problem reproducible with a cross-compiler?
Yes, it's m32c-elf
> Can you open a bug-report and attach pre-processed source in that
> case?
It's trying to cross-build libiberty, so just building shows the bug.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35834
On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 5:01 PM, DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I'm sure it just exposed it.
>
> If so, any clues about what the underlying bug might be?
It is probably simply a missing conversion or a latent bug in fold
that is exposed. Is this
problem reproducible with a cross-com
> I'm sure it just exposed it.
If so, any clues about what the underlying bug might be?
>
> This patch also fails for gcc.target/i386/movq.c with -fpic[1]. It
> doesn't fail before this patch was committed [2].
>
> [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-04/msg00031.html
> [2] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-04/msg1.html
This did not reproduce for me, but I've
On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 4:13 AM, DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I narrowed it down to commit 133403 (although whether that caused the
> bug or merely expose it, I don't know):
I'm sure it just exposed it.
Richard.
> 2008-03-21 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * tre
On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 12:24 AM, Tan, Jeffri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Apologies if this has been discussed before. I built the ARM compiler
> for gcc-3.4.1 and gcc-4.2.2, and there seems to be a performance
> regression. A tight loop in gcc-3.4.1 generates better code than
> gcc-4.2.2.
>
Andy H wrote:
There are several test in testsuite that use trampolines that are still
run with dejagnu switch set to no_trampolines.
Its on my TODO list for AVR target but a recent email reminded me that
it affects testing of other targets than can't or won't support
trampolines.
Theres a
There are several test in testsuite that use trampolines that are still
run with dejagnu switch set to no_trampolines.
Its on my TODO list for AVR target but a recent email reminded me that
it affects testing of other targets than can't or won't support
trampolines.
Theres an old patch by
Diego Novillo wrote:
Tom Tromey and I were chatting on IRC about the possibility of having
a Just-For-Fun awards ceremony at the GCC Summit where we would honor
folks in the community that have done some kind of positive
contribution to GCC (obviously a slow day for both of us).
The recipients w
On Fri, 2008-04-04 at 15:07 -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> Beyond those, I am left with:
>
>
> All targets had the following three failures:
>
> c64005c - "WRONG ITERATIVE TRACE LENGTH."
> c64005d - "WRONG ITERATIVE TRACE LENGTH."
> c953002 - "WRONG IT
Hello!
> > Have you tried running valgrind?
>
> Thanks for the tip. Indeed something shows up:
>
> [...]
>
> if (parts.base)
> {
> if (REGNO_POINTER_ALIGN (REGNO (parts.base)) < 32) <-- 820
> return 0;
> }
>
> I think parts.base is OK so it's probably REGNO_POINTER_ALIGN
>
13 matches
Mail list logo
