[Bug ada/70017] c52103x and c52104x test failure on s390x

2016-03-12 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70017 --- Comment #12 from Eric Botcazou --- Author: ebotcazou Date: Sat Mar 12 11:32:54 2016 New Revision: 234160 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=234160&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR ada/70017 * calls.c (emit_library_call_value_1): C

[Bug ada/70017] c52103x and c52104x test failure on s390x

2016-03-03 Thread jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70017 --- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek --- Author: jakub Date: Thu Mar 3 20:52:40 2016 New Revision: 233944 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233944&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR ada/70017 * gcc.dg/pr70017.c (foo): Store 0 to first e

[Bug ada/70017] c52103x and c52104x test failure on s390x

2016-03-02 Thread vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70017 Dominik Vogt changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug ada/70017] c52103x and c52104x test failure on s390x

2016-03-01 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70017 --- Comment #9 from Eric Botcazou --- > We have zero test failures with the patched code. Is that good enough or > should I still take a closer look? Good enough if you have no failures. You'll get the warning I just reinstated in corner cases

[Bug ada/70017] c52103x and c52104x test failure on s390x

2016-03-01 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70017 --- Comment #8 from Eric Botcazou --- Author: ebotcazou Date: Tue Mar 1 20:04:01 2016 New Revision: 233862 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=233862&root=gcc&view=rev Log: PR ada/70017 * ira.c (do_reload): Issue warning for ge

[Bug ada/70017] c52103x and c52104x test failure on s390x

2016-03-01 Thread vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70017 --- Comment #7 from Dominik Vogt --- Sorry, comment 6 is wrong, I was thinking about stack *guard* support.

[Bug ada/70017] c52103x and c52104x test failure on s390x

2016-03-01 Thread vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70017 --- Comment #6 from Dominik Vogt --- S390 does have stack checking support, so the question is really just whether Ada has extra requirements.

[Bug ada/70017] c52103x and c52104x test failure on s390x

2016-03-01 Thread vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70017 --- Comment #5 from Dominik Vogt --- We have zero test failures with the patched code. Is that good enough or should I still take a closer look?

[Bug ada/70017] c52103x and c52104x test failure on s390x

2016-03-01 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70017 --- Comment #4 from Eric Botcazou --- > It looks like no more than activating Stack_Check_Probes is required. Thanks! You're welcome. This might be sufficient for c52103x/c52104x/c52104y but might not be for cb1010a/cb1010c/cb1010d because the

[Bug ada/70017] c52103x and c52104x test failure on s390x

2016-03-01 Thread vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70017 --- Comment #3 from Dominik Vogt --- It looks like no more than activating Stack_Check_Probes is required. Thanks!

[Bug ada/70017] c52103x and c52104x test failure on s390x

2016-03-01 Thread ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70017 Eric Botcazou changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last reconfirmed|

[Bug ada/70017] c52103x and c52104x test failure on s390x

2016-02-29 Thread vogt at linux dot vnet.ibm.com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70017 Dominik Vogt changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Ada: c52103x test failure |c52103x and c52104x test