> I'm sorry that XCOFF debugging changes the generated code (only in the
> sense of allocating a frame), but that is a system dependency. It's
> been this way for over 20 years. I see no reason to produce worse
> code at -O0 when not debugging simply to make testcases happier.
You apparently rea
> On 04 May 2015, at 02:32, David Edelsohn wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 6:04 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>>> Why should GCC unnecessarily create stack frames to avoid
>>> compare-debug testcase failures?
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand the question... compare-debug failures are failures
>> (
On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 2:32 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 6:04 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>>> Why should GCC unnecessarily create stack frames to avoid
>>> compare-debug testcase failures?
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand the question... compare-debug failures are failures
>> (-
On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 6:04 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> Why should GCC unnecessarily create stack frames to avoid
>> compare-debug testcase failures?
>
> I'm not sure I understand the question... compare-debug failures are failures
> (-g is not supposed to change the generated code and this XCOFF-
> Why should GCC unnecessarily create stack frames to avoid
> compare-debug testcase failures?
I'm not sure I understand the question... compare-debug failures are failures
(-g is not supposed to change the generated code and this XCOFF-specific bug
was reported to us) so they need to be fixed.
On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 09:48:51AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> >> We might want to check if doing -Og and not just -O0.
> >
> > You're right, thanks, amended patch attached, same ChangeLog.
>
> Why should GCC unnecessarily create stack fr
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> We might want to check if doing -Og and not just -O0.
>
> You're right, thanks, amended patch attached, same ChangeLog.
Why should GCC unnecessarily create stack frames to avoid
compare-debug testcase failures?
- David
> We might want to check if doing -Og and not just -O0.
You're right, thanks, amended patch attached, same ChangeLog.
--
Eric BotcazouIndex: config/rs6000/rs6000.c
===
--- config/rs6000/rs6000.c (revision 222439)
+++ config/rs6000/r
> On Apr 29, 2015, at 3:22 AM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>
> You can easily get -fcompare-debug failures on AIX with small functions, in
> fact you get the failure for the empty function:
>
> void foo (void) {}
>
> eric@polaris:~/build/gcc/powerpc-ibm-aix7.1> gcc/xgcc -Bgcc -S t.c -O -
> fcompa
You can easily get -fcompare-debug failures on AIX with small functions, in
fact you get the failure for the empty function:
void foo (void) {}
eric@polaris:~/build/gcc/powerpc-ibm-aix7.1> gcc/xgcc -Bgcc -S t.c -O -
fcompare-debug
xgcc: error: t.c: -fcompare-debug failure (length)
Fixed thusly,
10 matches
Mail list logo