On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 1:43 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Apr 22, 2011, at 2:05 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
>> I think we shouldn't worry about this kind of testsuite fails.
>
> There are only two testcases in this class. I'd rather have zero. How do
> you propose to fix them? For some reason, p
On Apr 22, 2011, at 2:05 AM, Richard Guenther wrote:
> I think we shouldn't worry about this kind of testsuite fails.
There are only two testcases in this class. I'd rather have zero. How do you
propose to fix them? For some reason, please just ignore the failures in the
test suite doesn't se
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 3:40 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
> Ping?
The patch makes the testcase pointless. It also makes the AST differ
more from the source form, so I don't think
it's a particularly good idea.
I think we shouldn't worry about this kind of testsuite fails.
Richard.
> On Apr 12, 2011,
Ping?
On Apr 12, 2011, at 4:36 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
> This fixes 20020425-1.c when the compiler under test is built with -O0 and
> we're on a machine with an 8 meg stack.
>
> Ok?
>
> 2011-04-12 Mike Stump
>
> * c-typeck.c (c_finish_if_stmt): Fold result.
> * fold-const.c (fold
