subject:"\[Bug objc\/45989\] Some objc.dg\-struct\-layout\-encoding\-1 tests XPASS"

[Bug objc/45989] Some objc.dg-struct-layout-encoding-1 tests XPASS

2011-01-14 Thread ro at gcc dot gnu.org

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45989 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED Resolution|

[Bug objc/45989] Some objc.dg-struct-layout-encoding-1 tests XPASS

2011-01-14 Thread ro at gcc dot gnu.org

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45989 --- Comment #11 from Rainer Orth 2011-01-14 18:47:53 UTC --- Author: ro Date: Fri Jan 14 18:47:50 2011 New Revision: 168806 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=168806 Log: 2011-01-08 Dominique d'Humieres Rainer Orth

[Bug objc/45989] Some objc.dg-struct-layout-encoding-1 tests XPASS

2011-01-14 Thread ro at gcc dot gnu.org

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45989 Rainer Orth changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED URL|

[Bug objc/45989] Some objc.dg-struct-layout-encoding-1 tests XPASS

2011-01-09 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens.fr

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45989 --- Comment #9 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-01-09 11:24:59 UTC --- Created attachment 22934 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22934 updated patch > Indeed, had forgotten about that. In that case, we should do as > everywhere

[Bug objc/45989] Some objc.dg-struct-layout-encoding-1 tests XPASS

2011-01-07 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45989 --- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-01-07 19:16:42 UTC --- > --- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres > 2011-01-05 22:31:14 UTC --- >> * We should use i?86*-*-* (or perhaps just i?86-*-*, I see no reason for the >> first

[Bug objc/45989] Some objc.dg-struct-layout-encoding-1 tests XPASS

2011-01-05 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens.fr

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45989 --- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-01-05 22:31:14 UTC --- > * We should use i?86*-*-* (or perhaps just i?86-*-*, I see no reason for the > first *). I don't think this cover x86_64-*-*, this is why I have tested *86*-*-* > * The comm

[Bug objc/45989] Some objc.dg-struct-layout-encoding-1 tests XPASS

2011-01-05 Thread ro at gcc dot gnu.org

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45989 --- Comment #6 from Rainer Orth 2011-01-05 19:17:42 UTC --- Created attachment 22909 --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=22909 slightly revised patch

[Bug objc/45989] Some objc.dg-struct-layout-encoding-1 tests XPASS

2011-01-05 Thread ro at gcc dot gnu.org

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45989 --- Comment #5 from Rainer Orth 2011-01-05 19:10:41 UTC --- I successfully did on i386-pc-solaris2.11. I'd suggest a slightly updated version (attached), with two changes * We should use i?86*-*-* (or perhaps just i?86-*-*, I see no reason for

[Bug objc/45989] Some objc.dg-struct-layout-encoding-1 tests XPASS

2011-01-05 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens.fr

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45989 --- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-01-05 14:02:15 UTC --- Did somebody test the patch in comment #3?