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
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 of the array:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-12/msg00018.
