--- Comment #24 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-10 23:17 ---
A regression test using the test added in comment #23 identified:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=rev&rev=74332
r74332 | sayle | 2003-12-05 14:06:46 + (Fri, 05 Dec 2003)
--
http://gcc.gnu
--- Comment #22 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-10 21:24 ---
Steven asked for a regression hunt, but will not be pleased by the results. A
hunt using a hppa64-linux cross cc1 on powerpc-linux identified
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=rev&rev=81764
r81764 | dnov
--- Comment #12 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-11-14 17:51 ---
The submitter's testcase fails on powerpc-linux with the current 4.1 and 4.2
branches but has passed on mainline for several months. In comment #9 I said
that results seemed to be intermittent; if it wou
--- Comment #2 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-25 21:31 ---
A regression hunt on powerpc-linux looking for DWARF2 line number information
for lines with gotos identified this patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=rev&rev=83385
r83385 | hubicka | 2004-06-19 15:3
--- Comment #9 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-04-25 01:11 ---
The test also fails on powerpc-linux, so it's not specific to i686-linux. The
results seem to be inconsistent, so I'm doing more testing to determine whether
the failure is intermittent.
--
http://g
--- Comment #18 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-13 23:03 ---
Richard's testsuite change is now on the 4.1 branch, so the test passes again
there.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28651
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on t
--- Comment #17 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-13 18:01 ---
The version of the test in mainline was modified to not check argc; I'll
backport Richard's test fix to 4.1.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28651
--- You are receiving this ma
--- Comment #16 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-13 17:54 ---
I a saw a failure for this when testing backported testsuite changes, but it
passed when I ran it alone (with execute.exp=pr28651.c in RUNTESTFLAGS). I'm
testing it again now to see if the failure is intermi
--- Comment #8 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-27 01:12 ---
A regression hunt using the testcase from comment #5 identified this patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=rev&rev=116409
r116409 | nathan | 2006-08-25 16:56:07 + (Fri, 25 Aug 2006)
--
janis at
--- Comment #4 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-23 19:16 ---
A regression hunt using the testcase from comment #2 with -O2 using an
alpha-linux cross compiler identified this patch which fixed the ICE on
mainline:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=rev&rev=110556
r11
--- Comment #7 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-08-08 15:54 ---
A regression hunt using an i686-linux cross compiler with the testcase from
comment #6 identified the following patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=rev&rev=111300
r111300 | dberlin | 2006-02-20 13:3
--- Comment #5 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-02 23:04 ---
A regression hunt on powerpc-linux using the test from comment #0 identified
this patch:
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?view=rev&rev=111608
r111608 | dberlin | 2006-03-01 17:46:56 + (Wed, 01 Mar
--- Comment #8 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-08 22:11 ---
Hmm, "regression test" in the last comment should have been "regression hunt".
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24202
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You
--- Comment #7 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-08 22:10 ---
A regression test identified this patch from Neil on 2003-08-02 as thene start
of failures:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2003-08/msg00093.html
--
janis at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What
14 matches
Mail list logo
