On 9/24/19 5:57 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> Sure, and IMHO moving tests like this should be something that can be
> done without explicit ACKs.
Ok, next time I'll not ask for a confirmation ;)
Thanks,
Martin
>
> jeff
On 9/24/19 4:34 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
> On 9/24/19 11:14 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> Curious: even if you found the issue on a s390x target, shouldn't this
>> (presumably generic?) test case live in a generic place instead of
>> 'gcc.target/s390/'?
>
> Sure, that's logical and I've j
On 9/24/19 11:14 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Curious: even if you found the issue on a s390x target, shouldn't this
> (presumably generic?) test case live in a generic place instead of
> 'gcc.target/s390/'?
Sure, that's logical and I've just tested that locally on x86_64-linux-gnu.
Read
Hi!
Curious: even if you found the issue on a s390x target, shouldn't this
(presumably generic?) test case live in a generic place instead of
'gcc.target/s390/'?
Grüße
Thomas
On 2019-06-27T11:21:33+0200, Martin Liška wrote:
> This is quite an obvious changes I've noticed during fuzzing
> of
On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:21 AM Martin Liška wrote:
>
> Hi.
>
> This is quite an obvious changes I've noticed during fuzzing
> of s390x target compiler.
>
> Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests.
>
> Ready to be installed?
OK.
Richard.
> Thanks,
> Martin
>
> gcc
