If I combine GCC and binutils-gdb, bootstrap, enable gold, use
--enable-build-with-cxx:
configured by ../src/configure, generated by GNU Autoconf 2.64,
with options " '-C' '--enable-maintainer-mode' '--enable-objc-gc'
'--enable-libssp' '--enable-sim' '--enable-gold' '--enable-build-with-cxx'
'
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Comparing stages 2 and 3
> Bootstrap comparison failure!
> Now, what do I do to (help) debug this? Open a PR? Attach some of the
> object files (which)?
Well, ultimately, you could rebuild everything with --save-temps and take a
look at the .s files to see whether
Should we perhaps, again? I'm having trouble fixing one bootstrap-breaking
bug because of a second one that's piled in on top of it right now; how is it
for other targets?
cheers,
DaveK
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009, Jack Howarth wrote:
>I can confirm that the second proposed solution of passing
> -Wl,-no_compact_unwind
> to the linkage of the g++.dg/torture/stackalign/eh-vararg-2.C test cases
> eliminates
> the execution error on x86_64-apple-darwin10 so that option works. This lead
C:\devel\gccnew\gcc>gccmvs -DUSE_MEMMGR -Os -S -ansi -pedantic-errors -DHAVE_CON
FIG_H -DIN_GCC -DPUREISO -I ../../pdos/pdpclib -I . -I config/i370 -I
../include
varasm.c
(insn 117 429 118 7 (parallel [
(set (reg:SI 64)
(compare:SI (mem/s:BLK (plus:SI (reg/f:SI
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 5:51 AM, Dave Korn
wrote:
>
> Should we perhaps, again? I'm having trouble fixing one bootstrap-breaking
> bug because of a second one that's piled in on top of it right now; how is it
> for other targets?
>
> cheers,
> DaveK
>
>
What is slush?
NightStrike wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 5:51 AM, Dave Korn
> wrote:
>> Should we perhaps, again? I'm having trouble fixing one bootstrap-breaking
>> bug because of a second one that's piled in on top of it right now; how is it
>> for other targets?
>>
>>cheers,
>> DaveK
>>
>>
>
>
> Should we perhaps, again? I'm having trouble fixing one bootstrap-breaking
> bug because of a second one that's piled in on top of it right now; how is it
> for other targets?
Bad for darwin!-(bootstrap failing since at least r151822, see pr41405).
If you add pr41407+others, a slush should be
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Sep 2009, Jack Howarth wrote:
>
>>I can confirm that the second proposed solution of passing
>> -Wl,-no_compact_unwind
>> to the linkage of the g++.dg/torture/stackalign/eh-vararg-2.C test cases
>> eliminates
>> the execution error on x86_64-apple-darwin10
Dave Korn wrote:
A phase of development when we stop adding new code and merging new features
for a while and go into bug-fix only mode to let trunk stabilise when there
are significant numbers of high-impact open PRs impeding the smooth progress
of development.
+1
Cheers,
Angelo.
Dave Korn wrote:
NightStrike wrote:
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 5:51 AM, Dave Korn
wrote:
Should we perhaps, again? I'm having trouble fixing one bootstrap-breaking
bug because of a second one that's piled in on top of it right now; how is it
for other targets?
cheers,
DaveK
> I need to get run baseline test results on 4.3 and 4.4 for C and
> C++. But the GNAT/RTEMS Ada results show a large number of
> failures on the head that were not present in 4.3 and 4.4.
>
> SPARC and MIPS went from 2 to 319
> x86 went from about 20 (mostly qemu issues) to 225
OK, but the numbe
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 7:58 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> I need to get run baseline test results on 4.3 and 4.4 for C and
>> C++. But the GNAT/RTEMS Ada results show a large number of
>> failures on the head that were not present in 4.3 and 4.4.
>>
>> SPARC and MIPS went from 2 to 319
>> x86 went
2009/9/19 H.J. Lu :
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 7:58 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>>> I need to get run baseline test results on 4.3 and 4.4 for C and
>>> C++. But the GNAT/RTEMS Ada results show a large number of
>>> failures on the head that were not present in 4.3 and 4.4.
>>>
>>> SPARC and MIPS wen
On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 16:58 +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > I need to get run baseline test results on 4.3 and 4.4 for C and
> > C++. But the GNAT/RTEMS Ada results show a large number of
> > failures on the head that were not present in 4.3 and 4.4.
> >
> > SPARC and MIPS went from 2 to 319
> > x
> Joel reported results for 4.5.0 20090910 r151592 and state of GCC
> changed a lot in the past 9 days. RTEMS is also a sjlj target IIRC.
Then, if EH is totally broken, a PR should be opened with a reduced testcase.
--
Eric Botcazou
Laurent GUERBY wrote:
On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 16:58 +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
I need to get run baseline test results on 4.3 and 4.4 for C and
C++. But the GNAT/RTEMS Ada results show a large number of
failures on the head that were not present in 4.3 and 4.4.
SPARC and MIPS went from 2 to
Eric Botcazou wrote:
Joel reported results for 4.5.0 20090910 r151592 and state of GCC
changed a lot in the past 9 days. RTEMS is also a sjlj target IIRC.
Then, if EH is totally broken, a PR should be opened with a reduced testcase.
I will rebuild with the head and run ACATS on
one of
> I will rebuild with the head and run ACATS on
> one of the broken ones. If still bad, then
> I will try with some simple exception tests
> Laurent put together the last time it broke.
> Maybe they are useful again. :)
Were they added to the gnat.dg testsuite? If no, they should.
--
Eric Botc
> On what date?
See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-09
--
Eric Botcazou
And http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39886
This one is relatively rare, so no. Feel free to pick up the patch, I
already have too many approved patches that I cannot get round to test
and commit.
Paolo
On Fri, 18 Sep 2009, Jack Howarth wrote:
> Richard,
>We have an analysis on the cause of the breakage of
> exception handling at r147995 on x86_64-apple-darwin10 (PR41260)...
>
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2009-September/025908.html
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev
Status
==
The trunk is in Stage 1. Stage 1 will end on Sep 30th. After Stage 1
Stage 3 follows with only bugfixes and no new features allowed.
Stage 3 will end Nov 30th.
Since the last status report we have merged the VTA branch and pieces
of the LTO branch. The named address-spaces chan
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 10:57 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> Since the last status report we have merged the VTA branch and pieces
> of the LTO branch. The named address-spaces changes are still pending
> review but I expect it to be merged before the end of Stage 1.
> The rest of the LTO branch w
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009, Steven Bosscher wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 10:57 PM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> > Since the last status report we have merged the VTA branch and pieces
> > of the LTO branch. The named address-spaces changes are still pending
> > review but I expect it to be merged befo
Hello,
Long story short, I'm looking for a way to test a distribution's
compiler by running the latest gcc testsuite on it, but so far, I've
only seem to run it on the same gcc sourcetree it's on. I actually
wonder if it's possible and/or relevant to do this on the
distribution's compiler.
My
Nicolas Noble wrote:
> Is it possible to run the testsuite on the system's compiler ?
See contrib/test_installed
cheers,
DaveK
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 10:57:38PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> We've been accumulating quite a number of P1 bugs. Entering Stage 3
> should allow to improve considerably here in a short time.
>
Richard,
Will the graphite code be under strict stage 3 rules or will it
have more leeway u
On Sep 19, 2009, at 18:02, Steven Bosscher wrote:
* GDB test suite should pass with -O1
Apparently, the current GDB test suite can only work at -O0,
because code reorganization messes up the scripting.
-Geert
Richard Guenther wrote:
> The trunk is in Stage 1. Stage 1 will end on Sep 30th. After Stage 1
> Stage 3 follows with only bugfixes and no new features allowed.
> Stage 3 will end Nov 30th.
I don't think this is the best time to do that. Trunk's been broken most of
last week and will probab
On 09/19/09 18:14, Nicolas Noble wrote:
Hello,
Long story short, I'm looking for a way to test a distribution's
compiler by running the latest gcc testsuite on it, but so far, I've
only seem to run it on the same gcc sourcetree it's on. I actually
wonder if it's possible and/or relevant to do
Hi :
I'm puzzled when looking into speculative scheduling in gcc, the 4.2.4 version.
First, I noticed the document describing IBM haifa instruction
scheduler(as PowerPC Reference Compiler Optimization Project).
It presents that the instruction motion from bb s(dominated by t)
to t is speculative
32 matches
Mail list logo
