On 04/06/2011 12:15 AM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> I finally got a good bootstrap on IA64 HP-UX. I used this patch, Jeff's
> patch for PR 48444 (already checked in) and Nathan's patch for PR 48471.
> So yes, I'd like to see this patch checked in too.
Done.
Bernd
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 23:06 +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> Yes, possibly, and there is still the other issue that Jeff is working on.
>
> Given my results and that your patch from this thread apparently only
> restores
> the old behaviour, I'd install this patch.
I finally got a good bootstrap
> > After having done another round of testing, let me recap:
> > 1. yesterday's pristine tree yields the bootstrap comparison failure on
> > the IA-64/Linux machine,
> > 2. yesterday's pristine tree + your 2 patches to haifa-sched.c
> > successfully bootstraps on the IA-64/Linux machine.
>
> S
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 22:31 +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 04/05/2011 07:48 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> >> Looking into it. I ran into PR48441, I assume you were using the patch
> >> from that as well?
> >
> > It's yesterday's tree + your 2 patches to haifa-sched.c, so without
> > Steven's
> >
On 04/05/2011 07:48 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> Looking into it. I ran into PR48441, I assume you were using the patch
>> from that as well?
>
> It's yesterday's tree + your 2 patches to haifa-sched.c, so without Steven's
> patch... at least it was supposed to be, but I screwed up, sorry about th
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 20:18 +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > What are the two patches to haifa-sched.c? I have one patch to
> > schedule_block from
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-04/msg00271.html
> > but that patch (alone or with the Jeff Law patch) isn't working for me
> > on IA64 Linu
> What are the two patches to haifa-sched.c? I have one patch to
> schedule_block from
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-04/msg00271.html
> but that patch (alone or with the Jeff Law patch) isn't working for me
> on IA64 Linux. Is there a second haifa-sched.c patch I should also
> have?
N
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 19:48 +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > Looking into it. I ran into PR48441, I assume you were using the patch
> > from that as well?
>
> It's yesterday's tree + your 2 patches to haifa-sched.c, so without Steven's
> patch... at least it was supposed to be, but I screwed up, s
> Looking into it. I ran into PR48441, I assume you were using the patch
> from that as well?
It's yesterday's tree + your 2 patches to haifa-sched.c, so without Steven's
patch... at least it was supposed to be, but I screwed up, sorry about that.
After having done another round of testing, let
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 09:41 -0700, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> Hm, I just tried a bootstrap build on IA64 HP-UX using the haifa-sched.c
> patch and r171988 and I got this error during stage 2:
>
>
> /proj/opensrc_nobackup/sje/reg/src/trunk/gcc/genautomata.c: In function
> 'create_
> automata':
> /pro
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 17:54 +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 04/05/2011 04:32 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> >> The patch below fixes the testcase in the PR. I'll test
> >> tonight/tomorrow, probably on mips64-elf. Ok if that passes?
> >
> > I get back the comparison failure with it on IA-64/Linux:
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/05/11 10:10, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 04/05/2011 06:08 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 04/05/11 09:54, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>>> On 04/05/2011 04:32 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> The patch below fixes the testcase in the PR. I'll test
> tonight/to
On 04/05/2011 06:08 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 04/05/11 09:54, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>> On 04/05/2011 04:32 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
The patch below fixes the testcase in the PR. I'll test
tonight/tomorrow, probably on mips64-elf. Ok if that passes?
>>>
>>> I get back the comparison failure
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/05/11 09:54, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 04/05/2011 04:32 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>>> The patch below fixes the testcase in the PR. I'll test
>>> tonight/tomorrow, probably on mips64-elf. Ok if that passes?
>>
>> I get back the comparison failure
On 04/05/2011 04:32 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> The patch below fixes the testcase in the PR. I'll test
>> tonight/tomorrow, probably on mips64-elf. Ok if that passes?
>
> I get back the comparison failure with it on IA-64/Linux:
Looking into it. I ran into PR48441, I assume you were using the pa
> The patch below fixes the testcase in the PR. I'll test
> tonight/tomorrow, probably on mips64-elf. Ok if that passes?
I get back the comparison failure with it on IA-64/Linux:
Comparing stages 2 and 3
warning: gcc/cc1-checksum.o differs
warning: gcc/cc1plus-checksum.o differs
Bootstrap compari
On 03/24/2011 02:19 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> We can currently select an insn to be scheduled, only to find out that
> it's not actually valid at the current time, either due to state
> conflicts or being an asm with something else already scheduled in the
> same cycle. Not only is this pointless,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/24/11 07:19, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> We can currently select an insn to be scheduled, only to find out that
> it's not actually valid at the current time, either due to state
> conflicts or being an asm with something else already scheduled in the
18 matches
Mail list logo
