Re: remaining new darwin regressions

2009-01-21 Thread Mike Stump
On Jan 21, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: So that invalidates your previously proposed patch? Or should I still test it? No need to test, I was wrong about that being the bit that causes it. The description I last posted should be about right however, one just needs a bit of time i

Re: remaining new darwin regressions

2009-01-21 Thread Jack Howarth
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 11:59:09AM -0800, Mike Stump wrote: > On Jan 21, 2009, at 8:40 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote: >>> Sure, in i386/darwin.h we have: >>> >>> /* Since we'll never want a stack boundary less aligned than 128 bits >>> we need the extra work here otherwise bits of gcc get very grumpy >>>

Re: remaining new darwin regressions

2009-01-21 Thread Mike Stump
On Jan 21, 2009, at 8:40 PM, Uros Bizjak wrote: Sure, in i386/darwin.h we have: /* Since we'll never want a stack boundary less aligned than 128 bits we need the extra work here otherwise bits of gcc get very grumpy when we ask for lower alignment. We could just reject values less than 12

Re: remaining new darwin regressions

2009-01-21 Thread Eric Christopher
On Jan 21, 2009, at 11:40 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote: Hello! Sure, in i386/darwin.h we have: /* Since we'll never want a stack boundary less aligned than 128 bits we need the extra work here otherwise bits of gcc get very grumpy when we ask for lower alignment. We could just reject values le

Re: remaining new darwin regressions

2009-01-21 Thread Uros Bizjak
Hello! Sure, in i386/darwin.h we have: /* Since we'll never want a stack boundary less aligned than 128 bits we need the extra work here otherwise bits of gcc get very grumpy when we ask for lower alignment. We could just reject values less than 128 bits for Darwin, but it's easier to

Re: remaining new darwin regressions

2009-01-21 Thread Mike Stump
On Jan 20, 2009, at 11:22 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: Are there any observations that you could make concerning the thread... http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-01/msg00297.html Sure, in i386/darwin.h we have: /* Since we'll never want a stack boundary less aligned than 128 bits we need the extr

Re: remaining new darwin regressions

2009-01-20 Thread H.J. Lu
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 05:50:35PM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Jack Howarth >> wrote: >> > Currently i686-apple-darwin9 appears in very good shape for >> > gcc 4.4 with the exception of one new set of testsuite

Re: remaining new darwin regressions

2009-01-20 Thread Jack Howarth
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 05:50:35PM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Jack Howarth > wrote: > > Currently i686-apple-darwin9 appears in very good shape for > > gcc 4.4 with the exception of one new set of testsuite failures > > related to the new stackalignment changes. The

Re: remaining new darwin regressions

2009-01-20 Thread H.J. Lu
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: > Currently i686-apple-darwin9 appears in very good shape for > gcc 4.4 with the exception of one new set of testsuite failures > related to the new stackalignment changes. These all share the > commmon feature of only failing with the -O3 -g c

remaining new darwin regressions

2009-01-20 Thread Jack Howarth
Currently i686-apple-darwin9 appears in very good shape for gcc 4.4 with the exception of one new set of testsuite failures related to the new stackalignment changes. These all share the commmon feature of only failing with the -O3 -g compiler option flags... FAIL: g++.dg/torture/stackalign/eh-a