On 1/17/23 13:48, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 01:43:35PM +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote:
As a follow-up to this, I ran the full testsuite with -fstack-protector-all
and this results in lots of failures (~65000 in gcc.sum alone).
I guess that is way too much.
Since you also
On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 01:43:35PM +0100, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> As a follow-up to this, I ran the full testsuite with -fstack-protector-all
> and this results in lots of failures (~65000 in gcc.sum alone).
I guess that is way too much.
> Since you also mentioned -fstack-protector-strong, I ran
Hi Jakub,
On 1/15/23 17:54, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches wrote:
Hi!
On 1/13/23 16:38, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 03:18:06PM +0100, Christophe Lyon via
Gcc-patches wrote:
While working on enabling DFP for AArch64, I noticed new failures in
gcc.dg/compat/struct-layout-1.ex
Hi!
On 1/13/23 16:38, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 03:18:06PM +0100, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches wrote:
While working on enabling DFP for AArch64, I noticed new failures in
gcc.dg/compat/struct-layout-1.exp (t028) which were not actually
caused by DFP types handling. These
On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 08:25:01PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> alignment is 256, which is not <= 16 * BITS_PER_UNIT.
> type is pst_uniform4 with user alignment of 32 bytes:
> struct pst_uniform4
> {
> fixed_int32_t a __attribute__((aligned(SVE_BYTES * 2)));
> fixed_int32_t b[3
On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 04:38:00PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> I'm seeing
> +FAIL: g++.target/aarch64/bitfield-abi-warning-align16-O2.C
> scan-assembler-times and\\tw0, w1, 1 10
> +FAIL: g++.target/aarch64/bitfield-abi-warning-align32-O2.C
> scan-assembler-times and\\tw0, w1, 1
On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 03:18:06PM +0100, Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches wrote:
> While working on enabling DFP for AArch64, I noticed new failures in
> gcc.dg/compat/struct-layout-1.exp (t028) which were not actually
> caused by DFP types handling. These tests are generated during 'make
> check'
On 1/12/23 14:19, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Christophe Lyon writes:
While working on enabling DFP for AArch64, I noticed new failures in
gcc.dg/compat/struct-layout-1.exp (t028) which were not actually
caused by DFP types handling. These tests are generated during 'make
check' and enabling DF
Christophe Lyon writes:
> While working on enabling DFP for AArch64, I noticed new failures in
> gcc.dg/compat/struct-layout-1.exp (t028) which were not actually
> caused by DFP types handling. These tests are generated during 'make
> check' and enabling DFP made generation different (not sure if
While working on enabling DFP for AArch64, I noticed new failures in
gcc.dg/compat/struct-layout-1.exp (t028) which were not actually
caused by DFP types handling. These tests are generated during 'make
check' and enabling DFP made generation different (not sure if new
non-DFP tests are generated,
10 matches
Mail list logo
