--- Additional Comments From wilson at specifixinc dot com 2005-01-11
04:06 ---
Subject: Re: [3.3/3.4/4.0 regression] [ia64] Extra
'.restore sp' in tail call
On Fri, 2005-01-07 at 20:47, gdr at integrable-solutions dot net wrote:
> I must have missed that pat
--- Additional Comments From wilson at specifixinc dot com 2005-01-08
03:51 ---
Subject: Re: [4.0 regression] [ia64] Extra '.restore sp'
in tail call
On Wed, 2004-12-22 at 14:47, debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org
wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From
--- Additional Comments From wilson at specifixinc dot com 2004-02-07
09:17 ---
Subject: Re: [3.4/3.5 regression] ICE in cp_expr_size, at
cp/cp-lang.c:314 when using a non-trivial object in a compound statement
expression
schwab at suse dot de wrote:
> testsuite/g++.dg/ext/stmtex
--- Additional Comments From wilson at specifixinc dot com 2004-02-05
23:10 ---
Subject: Re: [3.4/3.5 regression] ICE in cp_expr_size, at
cp/cp-lang.c:314 when using a non-trivial object in a compound statement
expression
schwab at suse dot de wrote:
> --- Additional Comme
--- Additional Comments From wilson at specifixinc dot com 2004-01-30
02:25 ---
Subject: Re: Hopefully final patch for PR 13722
On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 22:41, Matthias Klose wrote:
> sorry, I was a bit unspecific. this was the 3.4 branch. last checkin
I have a copy of the gcc-3.4 bra
--- Additional Comments From wilson at specifixinc dot com 2004-01-28
22:07 ---
Subject: Re: Hopefully final patch for PR 13722
On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 12:02, Matthias Klose wrote:
> CVS 20040128 including your patch fails in the first ada file in
> stage2 (Debian unstable):
K
--- Additional Comments From wilson at specifixinc dot com 2004-01-28
21:27 ---
Subject: Re: Hopefully final patch for PR 13722
On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 12:02, Matthias Klose wrote:
> CVS 20040128 including your patch fails in the first ada file in
> stage2 (Debian unstable):
I co
--- Additional Comments From wilson at specifixinc dot com 2004-01-27
00:08 ---
Subject: Re: Hopefully final patch for PR 13722
On Mon, 2004-01-26 at 10:02, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> This incorporates all bugfixes to date and gets good test results on
> ia64-hpux (3.4 branch):
--- Additional Comments From wilson at specifixinc dot com 2004-01-25
07:40 ---
Subject: Re: PR 13722 candidate fix
My latest bootstrap succeeded. I didn't run the testsuite, and I still
had some debug code in there just to be safe, but I don't think either
of those iss
--- Additional Comments From wilson at specifixinc dot com 2004-01-25
04:09 ---
Subject: Re: PR 13722 candidate fix
My last bootstrap worked. I forgot to use the --enable-languages
option, so I ended up doing a full build plus gnatlib_and_tools. I
didn't try running the test
--- Additional Comments From wilson at specifixinc dot com 2004-01-24
20:17 ---
Subject: Re: PR 13722 candidate fix
I tried a bootstrap with all HAVE_POST_* macros turned off, and it still
failed.
I tried adding debug_rtx{_list,} calls to ia64_split_tmode_move and I
noticed a few
--- Additional Comments From wilson at specifixinc dot com 2004-01-24
17:38 ---
Subject: Re: PR 13722 candidate fix
On Fri, 2004-01-23 at 15:23, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> unadjustible POST_MODIFY were being emitted in the wrong place). So,
> if you wouldn't mind trying t
--- Additional Comments From wilson at specifixinc dot com 2004-01-24
03:55 ---
Subject: Re: PR 13722 candidate fix
On Fri, 2004-01-23 at 19:34, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Ok. I would prefer to implement that in a separate patch after we fix
> the bootstrap failure, though.
Yes, t
--- Additional Comments From wilson at specifixinc dot com 2004-01-24
03:31 ---
Subject: Re: PR 13722 candidate fix
On Fri, 2004-01-23 at 17:50, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> This, I think, can be addressed with peephole2 patterns, which have
> the ability to allocate scratch reg
--- Additional Comments From wilson at specifixinc dot com 2004-01-24
00:18 ---
Subject: Re: PR 13722 candidate fix
On Fri, 2004-01-23 at 00:47, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Re-revised patch.
On the REG/SUBREG issue, I was looking at your latest patch. In the
full context of the previ
--- Additional Comments From wilson at specifixinc dot com 2004-01-23
23:22 ---
Subject: Re: PR 13722 candidate fix
On Fri, 2004-01-23 at 00:47, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Re-revised patch.
I started a bootstrap as soon as I saw the patch. It just failed. I
will try taking a look
--- Additional Comments From wilson at specifixinc dot com 2004-01-23
22:55 ---
Subject: Re: PR 13722 candidate fix
On Thu, 2004-01-22 at 23:43, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Under what circumstances should REG_INC notes be tagged onto the insns
> emitted here? It's currently do
--- Additional Comments From wilson at specifixinc dot com 2004-01-22
22:17 ---
Subject: Re: [3.4/3.5 regression] [ia64] ICE in push_secondary_reload
zack at codesourcery dot com wrote:
> The implication of what you are saying above is that you don't think
> anyone withou
--- Additional Comments From wilson at specifixinc dot com 2004-01-22
05:21 ---
Subject: Re: [3.4/3.5 regression] [ia64] ICE in push_secondary_reload
zack at codesourcery dot com wrote:
> ... excuse me for having bigger problems on my plate right now. Not
> to mention that n
--- Additional Comments From wilson at specifixinc dot com 2004-01-22
02:13 ---
Subject: Re: [3.4/3.5 regression] [ia64] ICE in push_secondary_reload
See the MIME attachment.
I see Zack has left yet another IA-64 turd for me to clean up. Sigh.
The main problem with Zack's pat
PLEASE REPLY TO [EMAIL PROTECTED] ONLY, *NOT* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12564
--- Additional Comments From wilson at specifixinc dot com 2003-10-15
02:44 ---
Subject: Re: New: deprecate -V or update documentation
debian-gcc at lists dot debian
21 matches
Mail list logo
