On Jul 25, 2011, at 4:41 AM, Ira Rosen wrote:
> OK, so I am choosing the second patch.
> Tested by Ulrich on spu-elf, and on x86_64-suse-linux.
>
> OK for mainline? And 4.6?
Ok. Maintainers in particular areas should feel free to review/approve
testsuite patches in their areas. Since you're a
"Ulrich Weigand" wrote on 25/07/2011 12:19:54 PM:
> Ira Rosen wrote:
> > "Ulrich Weigand" wrote on 22/07/2011 05:05:57 PM:
> > > Any suggestions how to fix this? Maybe decrease N again and instead
> > > prevent unrolling via command line switch?
> >
> > There is no flag for this unrolling, bu
Ira Rosen wrote:
> "Ulrich Weigand" wrote on 22/07/2011 05:05:57 PM:
> > Any suggestions how to fix this? Maybe decrease N again and instead
> > prevent unrolling via command line switch?
>
> There is no flag for this unrolling, but we can run the test with -O1
> instead of -O2 (and with N=12) b
"Ulrich Weigand" wrote on 22/07/2011 05:05:57 PM:
> Hi Ira,
>
> gcc.dg/vect/vect-70.c fails sporadically on spu-elf, because the local
> variable "tmp1" exceeds local store size (it is over 1MB in size), and
> thus the stack wraps around.
>
> Dorit had originally fixed this by reducing the size
