--- Comment #17 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2008-03-04 11:04 ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> Sorry, I had two versions of patch and managed to commit the wrong copy.
> Sent correct one to ML. It should be fixed now.
Indeed, it's fixed! Many, many thanks!
> The point I wanted to make
--- Comment #16 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2008-03-04 07:03 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression]: FAIL: abi_check
> Note however, that the patch also didn't help Geoff's i686-linux tester, just
> have a look to gcc-testresults.
Sorry, I had two versions of patch and managed to commit the
--- Comment #15 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2008-03-04 00:09 ---
(In reply to comment #14)
> Hi,
> this is what I get from our thester:
>
> Differences:
> Tests that now work, but didn't before:
> abi_check
>
> so it ought to make differnece for i686-linux.
Note however, that the pat
--- Comment #14 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2008-03-03 23:46 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression]: FAIL: abi_check
> Honza, I'm sorry, can you please double-check the fix? On my x86_64-linux
> machines I'm not seeing any progress :(
Hi,
this is what I get from our thester:
Differences:
Te
--- Comment #13 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2008-03-03 19:04 ---
Honza, I'm sorry, can you please double-check the fix? On my x86_64-linux
machines I'm not seeing any progress :(
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-03 16:21
---
Subject: Bug 35262
Author: hubicka
Date: Mon Mar 3 16:20:31 2008
New Revision: 132838
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=132838
Log:
PR c++/35262
* ipa-inline.c (cgraph_decide_
--- Comment #12 from hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-03-03 16:23
---
Fixed.
--
hubicka at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
--- Comment #10 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2008-03-03 00:50 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression]: FAIL: abi_check
> Confirmed, of course. Honza, any news on the inlining issue?
Sorry,
I looked into it, got confused and then distracted by other problem and
forgot to return back.
At second
--- Comment #9 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2008-03-02 17:35 ---
Confirmed, of course. Honza, any news on the inlining issue?
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #8 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2008-02-24 13:45 ---
*** Bug 35351 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #7 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2008-02-21 00:08 ---
Created an attachment (id=15189)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=15189&action=view)
Pre-processed instantiation
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35262
--- Comment #6 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2008-02-21 00:07 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression]: FAIL: abi_check
>
> OK,
> if it really is just inlining decision difference then we are fine.
> I guess we can either update symbol list or mark always_inline
Yes
--- Comment #5 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2008-02-20 23:39 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression]: FAIL: abi_check
OK,
if it really is just inlining decision difference then we are fine.
I guess we can either update symbol list or mark always_inline
> because of a changing inlining decision
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2008-02-20 21:13 ---
I'm not sure there is a substantive bug here, in that the problem can be easily
fixed by simply tweaking gnu.ver to explicitely hide
ZSt13__check_facetISt7codecvtIcc11__mbstate_tEERKT_PS4_ and the wchar_t
counterpart: certa
--- Comment #3 from hubicka at ucw dot cz 2008-02-20 21:05 ---
Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression]: FAIL: abi_check
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > Jan, is this related to your patch?
>
> And if it is, then there is another bug somewhere else anyways as it could
> only
> change inlining dec
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-20 17:50 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Jan, is this related to your patch?
And if it is, then there is another bug somewhere else anyways as it could only
change inlining decisions.
-- Pinski
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2008-02-20 15:50 ---
Revision 132439 is bad:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-02/msg01322.html
Revision 132433 is OK:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-02/msg01318.html
The only change in 4.4 between those 2 revisi
17 matches
Mail list logo
