Okay, i isolated the problem (we are folding based on the wrong type
for constants, so we have a case where 1 << 63 becomes 0 instead of a
very large value).
Working on a patch now.
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Paolo
On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 1:17 PM, Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>>
>> This is likely to have been my patch.
>> I'm minimizing the check_construct_destroy failure right now.
>> If someone could give me some idea of what is causing the execution
>> failures while i do that, i may be a
Hi,
This is likely to have been my patch.
I'm minimizing the check_construct_destroy failure right now.
If someone could give me some idea of what is causing the execution
failures while i do that, i may be able to fix them faster :)
Thanks for fixing the check_construct_destroy problem.
I w
This is likely to have been my patch.
I'm minimizing the check_construct_destroy failure right now.
If someone could give me some idea of what is causing the execution
failures while i do that, i may be able to fix them faster :)
On Wed, Jul 9, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w
Hi,
just to be sure people notice: there are new (1-2 days max) regressions in
libstdc++, caused by compiler changes. See, for example:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-07/msg00824.html
I can look a bit more into this in the next days, but again I pretty much
exclude this has been
