On 16/03/16 17:15, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:12 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
Any particular reason why this test was changed to DOS format?
FWIW, the test was in DOS format from the start.
Thanks
- Tom
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 16/03/16 17:15, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:12 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>
>>> Any particular reason why this test was changed to DOS format?
>
>
> FWIW, the test was in DOS format from the start.
>
>
DOS format was introduc
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:12 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 2:30 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> On 09-02-15 09:59, Richard Biener wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 5 Feb 2015, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>>
On 26-01-15 15:47, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-19.c
>
On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:41 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> On 16/03/16 17:15, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:12 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>>
>>
Any particular reason why this test was changed to DOS format?
>>
>>
>> FWIW, the test wa
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 2:30 AM, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 09-02-15 09:59, Richard Biener wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 5 Feb 2015, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>
>>> On 26-01-15 15:47, Richard Biener wrote:
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-19.c
==
On Wed, 16 Mar 2016, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:41 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:35 AM, Tom de Vries
> > wrote:
> >> On 16/03/16 17:15, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:12 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >>
> >>
> Any particular reason why this
On 11-02-15 10:22, Dominique d'Humières wrote:
Le 10 févr. 2015 à 12:42, Tom de Vries a écrit :
I think we need to understand first what's going on.
Sure, my patch was mainly to silence the failures on my working tree.
In both test-cases, on Linux with -fpic the inlining of one funct ion
> Le 10 févr. 2015 à 12:42, Tom de Vries a écrit :
>
> I think we need to understand first what's going on.
Sure, my patch was mainly to silence the failures on my working tree.
> In both test-cases, on Linux with -fpic the inlining of one function into the
> other is not done, because we can
Tom,
At -m32 on x86_64-apple-darwin14, the failing test case executes...
% /sw/src/fink.build/gcc50-5.0.0-1000/darwin_objdir/gcc/xgcc
-B/sw/src/fink.build/gcc50-5.0.0-1000/darwin_objdir/gcc/
/sw/src/fink.build/gcc50-5.0.0-1000/gcc-5-20150209/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-19.c
-fno-diagnostics
On 09-02-15 20:01, Dominique d'Humières wrote:
Le 9 févr. 2015 à 19:10, Tom de Vries mailto:tom_devr...@mentor.com>> a écrit :
On 09-02-15 18:23, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
Tom,
After these changes I have the following regressions on
x86_64-apple-darwin1[04]*:
FAIL: gcc.dg/uninit-19.c (tes
Also, aren't we pretty much the only target to default to PIC? So if
the 'target' and 'nonpic' testing is failing when used in the context
of dg-warning, wouldn't that appear functional on the nonpic targets?
That is, since the nonpic test is to check for __PIC__, if that fails
in dg-warning, woul
This appears to be the first instance where 'target' and 'nonpic' have
been used in a dg-warning.
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Dominique d'Humières wrote:
>
>> Le 9 févr. 2015 à 20:01, Dominique d'Humières a écrit :
>>
>>
>>> Le 9 févr. 2015 à 19:10, Tom de Vries a écrit :
>>>
>>> On 09-02-1
> Le 9 févr. 2015 à 20:01, Dominique d'Humières a écrit :
>
>
>> Le 9 févr. 2015 à 19:10, Tom de Vries a écrit :
>>
>> On 09-02-15 18:23, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
>>> Tom,
>>>
>>> After these changes I have the following regressions on
>>> x86_64-apple-darwin1[04]*:
>>>
>>> FAIL: gcc.dg/
On 09-02-15 18:23, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
Tom,
After these changes I have the following regressions on
x86_64-apple-darwin1[04]*:
FAIL: gcc.dg/uninit-19.c (test for warnings, line 22)
FAIL: gcc.dg/uninit-19.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/graphite/scop-19.c scan-tree-dump-times gr
Tom,
After these changes I have the following regressions on
x86_64-apple-darwin1[04]*:
FAIL: gcc.dg/uninit-19.c (test for warnings, line 22)
FAIL: gcc.dg/uninit-19.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/graphite/scop-19.c scan-tree-dump-times graphite "number of SCoPs:
0" 1
I can prepare an
On 09-02-15 09:59, Richard Biener wrote:
On Thu, 5 Feb 2015, Tom de Vries wrote:
On 26-01-15 15:47, Richard Biener wrote:
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-19.c
===
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-19.c(revision 0)
+++ gcc/tes
On Thu, 5 Feb 2015, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 26-01-15 15:47, Richard Biener wrote:
> > Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-19.c
> > ===
> > --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-19.c(revision 0)
> > +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-19
On 26-01-15 15:47, Richard Biener wrote:
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-19.c
===
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-19.c(revision 0)
+++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/uninit-19.c(working copy)
@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+/* { dg-do compile } *
The following fixes PR64764.
Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, applied to trunk.
Richard.
2015-01-26 Richard Biener
PR middle-end/64764
* tree-ssa-uninit.c (is_pred_expr_subset_of): Handle
combining two BIT_AND_EXPR predicates.
* gcc.dg/un
19 matches
Mail list logo
