Jeff Law writes:
> On 05/14/2013 04:31 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:26:31PM +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
>>> Tested with the appropriate runtest invocations on i386-pc-solaris2.11
>>> and x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, installed on mainline.
>>
>> I'd say the test should just us
On 05/14/2013 04:31 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:26:31PM +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
Tested with the appropriate runtest invocations on i386-pc-solaris2.11
and x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, installed on mainline.
I'd say the test should just use __builtin_alloca instead.
Yea,
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 12:26:31PM +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Tested with the appropriate runtest invocations on i386-pc-solaris2.11
> and x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, installed on mainline.
I'd say the test should just use __builtin_alloca instead.
> 2013-05-14 Rainer Orth
>
> * gcc.dg/f
The new gcc.dg/fstack-protector-strong.c testcase is currently failing
on Solaris/x86 like this:
FAIL: gcc.dg/fstack-protector-strong.c (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
/vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/fstack-protector-strong.c:113:13:
warning: incompatible implicit declar
