On 6/8/22 15:19, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Christophe Lyon writes:
On 6/7/22 19:44, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches writes:
While working on enabling DFP for AArch64, I noticed new failures in
gcc.dg/compat/struct-layout-1.exp (t028) which were not actually
caused
Christophe Lyon writes:
> On 6/7/22 19:44, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches writes:
>>> While working on enabling DFP for AArch64, I noticed new failures in
>>> gcc.dg/compat/struct-layout-1.exp (t028) which were not actually
>>> caused by DFP types handling. These test
On 6/7/22 19:44, Richard Sandiford wrote:
Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches writes:
While working on enabling DFP for AArch64, I noticed new failures in
gcc.dg/compat/struct-layout-1.exp (t028) which were not actually
caused by DFP types handling. These tests are generated during 'make
check'
Christophe Lyon via Gcc-patches writes:
> While working on enabling DFP for AArch64, I noticed new failures in
> gcc.dg/compat/struct-layout-1.exp (t028) which were not actually
> caused by DFP types handling. These tests are generated during 'make
> check' and enabling DFP made generation differe
While working on enabling DFP for AArch64, I noticed new failures in
gcc.dg/compat/struct-layout-1.exp (t028) which were not actually
caused by DFP types handling. These tests are generated during 'make
check' and enabling DFP made generation different (not sure if new
non-DFP tests are generated,
