--- Comment #7 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-07 21:41 ---
Fixed.
--
hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRM
--- Comment #6 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-07 13:36 ---
Subject: Bug 44850
Author: hjl
Date: Wed Jul 7 13:36:31 2010
New Revision: 161911
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=161911
Log:
Revert revision 161876.
2010-07-07 H.J. Lu
PR target/448
--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-07 07:17 ---
Yeah, the amount of regressions is huge, both on x86_64-linux and i686-linux.
The difference is in i386 now overriding config/elfos.h definition:
/* Write the extra assembler code needed to declare a function properly
--- Comment #4 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-07 00:50 ---
I also have MANY execution test failures on Linux/x86-64.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44850
--- Comment #3 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-07 00:44 ---
Mine didn't shown up. In any case, I have 18580+ execution test failures.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44850
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-07-07 00:42 ---
Actually it did:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2010-07/msg00102.html
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2010-07-07 00:41 ---
There are so many failures that they won't show up at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-07/
nor
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2010-07/
since the messages are too big.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bu
