I am still looking into this, it's on my stack of PRE weirdness :)
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Steve Ellcey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 11:29 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>> Do we have a bug for these FAILs? Maybe we should add the analysis that
>> happened so
On Thu, 2008-10-16 at 11:29 +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> Do we have a bug for these FAILs? Maybe we should add the analysis that
> happened sofar.
>
> Richard.
I have created PR 37853.
Steve Ellcey
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 1:05 AM, Steve Ellcey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Dan and Richard,
> >
> > Are either of you aware of the gcc.dg/vect/vect-67.c failure that is
> > occuring on some platforms? I see it on IA64 (Linux and HP-UX) but a
> > scan of the gcc-testresults mailing lists shows
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 1:05 AM, Steve Ellcey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dan and Richard,
>
> Are either of you aware of the gcc.dg/vect/vect-67.c failure that is
> occuring on some platforms? I see it on IA64 (Linux and HP-UX) but a
> scan of the gcc-testresults mailing lists shows failures on
Dan and Richard,
Are either of you aware of the gcc.dg/vect/vect-67.c failure that is
occuring on some platforms? I see it on IA64 (Linux and HP-UX) but a
scan of the gcc-testresults mailing lists shows failures on x86_64 and
powerpc as well.
Looking into the failure, I see that it started (at l
