Thanks for the background. I had gone ahead and put it into gcc.dg,
but next time I can put it in gcc.dg/torture.
Teresa
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 09:24:28AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 05/03/2013 04:46 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>> >On Fri, M
On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 09:24:28AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 05/03/2013 04:46 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> >On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> >>Yes it will ICE on failure. What is the guideline on c.torture vs gcc.dg?
> I don't think there's any general guidelines.
>
> c-t
On 05/03/2013 04:46 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
Yes it will ICE on failure. What is the guideline on c.torture vs gcc.dg?
I don't think there's any general guidelines.
c-torture was an older framework that was considerably less expressive
Resending since it bounced as my mailer wasn't set to plain text.
Teresa
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 12:48 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
> Yes it will ICE on failure. What is the guideline on c.torture vs gcc.dg?
> Thanks,
> Teresa
>
> On May 3, 2013 11:47 AM, "Jeff Law" wrote:
>>
>> On 05/03/2013 12:35
On 05/03/2013 12:35 PM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
Here is the patch with the new test case. Tested using dejagnu with
and without my fix for PR57154 to confirm that it exposes the failure
and works with the patch.
Ok for trunk?
Thanks,
Teresa
2013-05-03 Teresa Johnson
PR bootstrap/57154
* gcc.
Here is the patch with the new test case. Tested using dejagnu with
and without my fix for PR57154 to confirm that it exposes the failure
and works with the patch.
Ok for trunk?
Thanks,
Teresa
2013-05-03 Teresa Johnson
PR bootstrap/57154
* gcc.dg/pr57154.c: New test.
Index: gcc.dg/pr57154.c
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 10:28 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 05/03/2013 11:15 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 9:37 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
Thanks for the patch.
Bootstrap works on x86 and Anton's tes
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 05/03/2013 11:15 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 9:37 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for the patch.
>>>
>>> Bootstrap works on x86 and Anton's testcase works on x86.
>>>
>>> Is there any testcase for x86 that wo
On 05/03/2013 11:15 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 9:37 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
Thanks for the patch.
Bootstrap works on x86 and Anton's testcase works on x86.
Is there any testcase for x86 that would demonstrate the failure or
that could check the probabilities in a dump
On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 9:37 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> Thanks for the patch.
>
> Bootstrap works on x86 and Anton's testcase works on x86.
>
> Is there any testcase for x86 that would demonstrate the failure or
> that could check the probabilities in a dump file and see the
> inconsistency?
Patc
On 05/03/2013 10:23 AM, Teresa Johnson wrote:
This patch fixes PR bootstrap/57154.
Bootstrapped on powerpc64-linux to ensure it fixes the bootstrap problem
reported
for that architecture, and also the test case attached to the bug report.
Also bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-unknown-linux-
Thanks for the patch.
Bootstrap works on x86 and Anton's testcase works on x86.
Is there any testcase for x86 that would demonstrate the failure or
that could check the probabilities in a dump file and see the
inconsistency?
Thanks, David
This patch fixes PR bootstrap/57154.
Bootstrapped on powerpc64-linux to ensure it fixes the bootstrap problem
reported
for that architecture, and also the test case attached to the bug report.
Also bootstrapped and regtested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
Ok for trunk?
Thanks,
Teresa
2013-05-03
13 matches
Mail list logo
