http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=46941
Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2010.12.22 13:51:33
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-12-22
13:51:33 UTC ---
Patrick.
I haven't analyzed your patch yet, but it causes the following regressions:
FAIL: g++.dg/tm/pr45940-3.C (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/tm/pr45940-4.C (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/tm/pr46269.C (internal compiler error)
FAIL: g++.dg/tm/pr46269.C (test for excess errors)
Try to run the regression suite to test your patch first. It's a good first
round of testing. You can run it with "make check" from the toplevel build
directory. You can compare results with and without your patch.
To run just the TM compiler tests you can do:
make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS=tm.exp
I have a similar patch to yours that I'm playing with, that unfortunately also
causes the pr46269.C regression, though not the pr45940-* failures.
I am debugging and will report shortly.
Thanks.
