On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>Nick Glencross wrote:
>> Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>
>>> Fixed, thanks for testing.
>>
>> Hmmm... Not seeing any improvement at my end ...
>
>I don't see any indication that it is still broken. I ran "make test" on
>two different boxes w/o failures (the 2 c
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Nick Glencross wrote:
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Fixed, thanks for testing.
Hmmm... Not seeing any improvement at my end ...
I don't see any indication that it is still broken. I ran "make test" on
two different boxes w/o failures (the 2 cases are
imcc/t/imcpasm/
Nick Glencross wrote:
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Fixed, thanks for testing.
Hmmm... Not seeing any improvement at my end ...
I don't see any indication that it is still broken. I ran "make test" on
two different boxes w/o failures (the 2 cases are
imcc/t/imcpasm/opt1_71.pir and _72.pir).
W
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Nick Glencross wrote:
(I'm reposting this because I'm not sure what happened to the one that
I sent to parrotbugs; forgive me if two eventually appear)
Folks,
There seems to be some problems with -O1 when instructions are
optimised at the end of functions.
Fixed,
Nick Glencross wrote:
(I'm reposting this because I'm not sure what happened to the one that I
sent to parrotbugs; forgive me if two eventually appear)
Folks,
There seems to be some problems with -O1 when instructions are optimised
at the end of functions.
Fixed, thanks for testing.
In wh
(I'm reposting this because I'm not sure what happened to the one that I
sent to parrotbugs; forgive me if two eventually appear)
Folks,
There seems to be some problems with -O1 when instructions are optimised
at the end of functions. For instance, take
sub main
func ()
end
sub func
$I0
