Hi Mike, On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 06:06:05PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote: > On Feb 8, 2018, at 12:36 PM, Segher Boessenkool <seg...@kernel.crashing.org> > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 03:52:27PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote: > >> I dusted the pointed to patch off and check it in. Let us know how it > >> goes. > > > > I wanted to test this on the primary and secondary powerpc targets as > > well, but okay. > > I reviewed it, and it seemed to only trigger for darwin. Certainly doesn't > hurt to run a regression run and ensure that is the case.
We'll find out if it regresses :-) > >> Does this resolve all of PR84113? If so, I can push the bug along. > > > > It makes bootstrap work. We don't know if it is correct otherwise. > > So, would be nice if someone could run a regression test. I'd do it by the > version just before the breakage, and then drop in the patch, and test again. > This minimizes all the other changes. Douglas has done a test (C family languages only it seems) at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2018-02/msg00374.html but it is hard to compare to previous results (not the same config, long ago, etc.) > >> What PR was the attachment url from? > > > > It is not from a PR, and it has never been sent to gcc-patches; it is > > from https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2017-01/msg02971.html > > (attachment #2). > > Ah, that explains it. > > Sounds like 1, 3 and 4 also likely need to go it to make things nice. If > someone could regression test and let us know, that's likely the gating > factor. Yeah, it's not easy to accept those patches without proper regression testing, it's stage 4... But the patches probably are good. Segher
