On Fri, 2015-02-27 at 15:30 +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> On 2015.02.27 at 07:47 -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> >
> > Ok, since the results met your criteria for inclusion, I committed the
> > change as revision 221060. Thanks.
>
> Are there any plans to fix:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
On 2015.02.27 at 07:47 -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
>
> Ok, since the results met your criteria for inclusion, I committed the
> change as revision 221060. Thanks.
Are there any plans to fix:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63927 ?
--
Markus
On Thu, 2015-02-26 at 20:04 -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-02-26 at 22:56 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > How do make check results (asan.exp/ubsan.exp) look like on ppc64le?
> > If it works as good as or better as ppc64be, then I'm fine with adding it
> > even in stage4.
>
> They have
On Thu, 2015-02-26 at 22:56 +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> How do make check results (asan.exp/ubsan.exp) look like on ppc64le?
> If it works as good as or better as ppc64be, then I'm fine with adding it
> even in stage4.
They have the same exact failures in ubsan and ppc64le has fewer asan
failure
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 4:56 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 03:52:24PM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
>> The upstream libsanitizer code has been modified to support
>> powerpc64le-linux,
>> but we seemed to have forgot to enable it being built by default on LE.
>> I applied the p
On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 03:52:24PM -0600, Peter Bergner wrote:
> The upstream libsanitizer code has been modified to support powerpc64le-linux,
> but we seemed to have forgot to enable it being built by default on LE.
> I applied the patch below and ran the testsuite and the test results look
> sim
The upstream libsanitizer code has been modified to support powerpc64le-linux,
but we seemed to have forgot to enable it being built by default on LE.
I applied the patch below and ran the testsuite and the test results look
similar to the BE results, maybe even a little better. I believe they
sho
