[Bug testsuite/36087] [4.4 Regression] test failures between revs. 134696 and 134717

2008-08-22 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #10 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-22 14:39 --- Closing as fixed. The memcpy issue is tracked separately, the pr35729.c failure should be filed in a less confusing bugreport. -- rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed

[Bug testsuite/36087] [4.4 Regression] test failures between revs. 134696 and 134717

2008-08-12 Thread janis at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #9 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-12 21:20 --- Subject: Bug 36087 Author: janis Date: Tue Aug 12 21:18:54 2008 New Revision: 139037 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=139037 Log: PR testsuite/36087 * gcc.dg/var-expand3.c: Fix na

[Bug testsuite/36087] [4.4 Regression] test failures between revs. 134696 and 134717

2008-08-08 Thread mark at codesourcery dot com
--- Comment #8 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2008-08-08 23:40 --- Subject: Re: [4.4 Regression] test failures between revs. 134696 and 134717 janis at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: > --- Comment #7 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-08 23:34 --- > Mark, the tests star

[Bug testsuite/36087] [4.4 Regression] test failures between revs. 134696 and 134717

2008-08-08 Thread janis at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-08 23:34 --- Mark, the tests started failing because -fdump-rtl-loop2 used to produce dump files for all loop2_* passes. The compiler could be fixed to do that again, or the tests mentioned here could be changed to use -fdump-rtl-

[Bug testsuite/36087] [4.4 Regression] test failures between revs. 134696 and 134717

2008-08-08 Thread mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-08 22:46 --- Janis -- I don't understand this PR. It sounds like this should just be closed out, since the failures reported are long-standing, and, if necessary, new PRs opened for the other issues reported here. Is that co

[Bug testsuite/36087] [4.4 Regression] test failures between revs. 134696 and 134717

2008-06-15 Thread danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #5 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-06-15 19:36 --- I also see the pr35729.c failure on hppa*-*-*. FAIL: gcc.dg/pr35729.c scan-rtl-dump-times loop2_invariant "Decided to move invariant" 0 -- danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed

[Bug testsuite/36087] [4.4 Regression] test failures between revs. 134696 and 134717

2008-05-15 Thread janis at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-15 21:04 --- For gcc.dg/var-expand3.c I've got a patch to scandump.exp to get rid of the ERROR and report FAIL if the requested dump file doesn't exist. The test still fails because of the issue in comment #3, but more cleanly.

[Bug testsuite/36087] [4.4 Regression] test failures between revs. 134696 and 134717

2008-05-13 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
-- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot |

[Bug testsuite/36087] [4.4 Regression] test failures between revs. 134696 and 134717

2008-05-13 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-13 22:08 --- >ERROR: gcc.dg/var-expand3.c: error executing dg-final: no files matched glob I reported this to the developer before: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-03/msg01229.html -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org ch

[Bug testsuite/36087] [4.4 Regression] test failures between revs. 134696 and 134717

2008-05-13 Thread janis at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #2 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-13 22:00 --- Those tests have been failing for quite awhile and are reported through http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-04/msg01958.html. Starting in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-04/msg01978.html we see: ERRO

[Bug testsuite/36087] [4.4 Regression] test failures between revs. 134696 and 134717

2008-04-30 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
--- Comment #1 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-04-30 14:09 --- After reading again my post, I realized that rev. 134697 deals with i386 only and should not affect powerpc and I don't see how 134714 can be the cause. All the other revisions deal with branches or gfortran. --