I filed a PR29090 for the gcc.dg-struct-layout-1 failure of
T(94,struct atal16{}a;,)
OK.
.comm _a94,1
.stabs "a94:G(0,1)=ar(0,2)[EMAIL
PROTECTED];r(0,2);0;017;;0;04;(1,1)",32,0,1,0
.stabs "long unsigned int:t(0,3)[EMAIL
PROTECTED];r(0,3);0;01
Eric,
I filed a PR29090 for the gcc.dg-struct-layout-1 failure of
T(94,struct atal16{}a;,)
...out of the set of failures I see. I noticed that in the
assembly from struct-layout-1_y.s, the follow occurs...
.comm _a94,1
.stabs "a94:G(0,1)=ar(0,2)[EMAIL
PROTECTED];r(0,2);0;01777
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 09:19:12AM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
> T(94,struct atal16{}a;,)
>
> into struct-layout-1_test.h would I append it to the
> original...
>
> T(0,enum E2 a:31;,B(0,a,e2_m1,e2_0))
>
> ...or replace it? Also I assume I should be editing
Doesn't matter, in one case you'll run
Jakub,
I would like to create a test case for a couple of the
failures I see in gcc.dg-struct-layout-1 on Darwin PPC -m64
so I can submit a PR for this one. I have been able to find
all of the lines in the generated testcase for the failed
tests...
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-09/msg00211.html
Eric,
Yesterday's gcc trunk (with the residual TImode patch) shows the following
gcc
testsuite failures at -m64...
FAIL: tmpdir-gcc.dg-struct-layout-1/t001 c_compat_x_tst.o-c_compat_y_tst.o
execute
FAIL: tmpdir-gcc.dg-struct-layout-1/t003 c_compat_x_tst.o-c_compat_y_tst.o
execute
FAIL: tmp
Jack Howarth wrote:
Eric,
Do you see the same set of failures...
FAIL: tmpdir-gcc.dg-struct-layout-1/t001 c_compat_x_tst.o-c_compat_y_tst.o execute
FAIL: tmpdir-gcc.dg-struct-layout-1/t003 c_compat_x_tst.o-c_compat_y_tst.o execute
FAIL: tmpdir-gcc.dg-struct-layout-1/t005 c_compat_x_tst.o-c_
Eric,
Do you see the same set of failures...
> FAIL: tmpdir-gcc.dg-struct-layout-1/t001 c_compat_x_tst.o-c_compat_y_tst.o
> execute
> FAIL: tmpdir-gcc.dg-struct-layout-1/t003 c_compat_x_tst.o-c_compat_y_tst.o
> execute
> FAIL: tmpdir-gcc.dg-struct-layout-1/t005 c_compat_x_tst.o-c_compat_y_t
Does anyone recognize any sort of pattern to these failures which might suggest
why they
fail on Darwin PPC at -m64 and not on ppc64?
We do have a radar about the lack of aligned uninitialized variable
support, i.e. .comm x,size,align that references t001 and t025.
-eric
One other note about the tmpdir-gcc.dg-struct-layout-1 failures. I wonder
if they could be another manifestation of the latent bug in float to integer
conversion which I described in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-08/msg00500.html?
Jack
Jakub,
Okay. I managed to get the testcase built but -DDBG at -m64
by just changing the ifdef for DBDG to an ifndef in the header.
The results on Darwin PPC are as follows...
fail 94.72
FAIL: tmpdir-gcc.dg-struct-layout-1/t001 c_compat_x_tst.o-c_compat_y_tst.o
execute
...which in testsuite/
Jakub,
I don't believe I'm using ALT_CC_UNDER_TEST or ALT_CC_UNDER_TEST.
However I do have to explicitly pass -m64 so that I test that
compile flag at the same time I pass -DDBG. I haven't been able
to puzzle out an invocation of make check that does that. If I
use...
make -k check-gcc RUNTESTF
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 12:32:35AM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
> On Darwin PPC at -m64, we are seeing a slew of failures
> in the tmpdir-gcc.dg-struct-layout-1 tests...
>
> FAIL: tmpdir-gcc.dg-struct-layout-1/t001 c_compat_x_tst.o-c_compat_y_tst.o
> execute
> FAIL: tmpdir-gcc.dg-struct-layou
On Darwin PPC at -m64, we are seeing a slew of failures
in the tmpdir-gcc.dg-struct-layout-1 tests...
FAIL: tmpdir-gcc.dg-struct-layout-1/t001 c_compat_x_tst.o-c_compat_y_tst.o
execute
FAIL: tmpdir-gcc.dg-struct-layout-1/t003 c_compat_x_tst.o-c_compat_y_tst.o
execute
FAIL: tmpdir-gcc.dg-s
13 matches
Mail list logo
