https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97090
--- Comment #17 from David Malcolm ---
Thanks for the confirmations.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97090
--- Comment #16 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
The last time I saw the failure on Solaris was on 20210106.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97090
--- Comment #15 from Christophe Lyon ---
Indeed I don't see that anymore.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97090
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97090
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|11.2|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97090
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|11.0|11.2
--- Comment #13 from Jakub Jelinek
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97090
--- Comment #12 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #11 from David Malcolm ---
> Re comment #10: I just tested unknown-fns-4.c and malloc-vs-local-1b.c 500
> times each on a --target=i386-pc-solaris2.11 build using the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97090
--- Comment #11 from David Malcolm ---
Re comment #10: I just tested unknown-fns-4.c and malloc-vs-local-1b.c 500
times each on a --target=i386-pc-solaris2.11 build using the script from
comment #8 and the results were identical each time. So
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97090
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |11.0
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97090
--- Comment #9 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I saw
FAIL: gcc.dg/analyzer/malloc-vs-local-1b.c (test for bogus messages, line 170)
on a make check for 66dde7bc64b75d4a338266333c9c490b12d49825, r11-5583 just
moments ago on a powerpc64 BE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97090
--- Comment #8 from David Malcolm ---
I tested with a cross build on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu with
target==powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu after various fixes for non-determinism
(g:f635f0ce87d687b177b734968f18226d50499e75) and I'm not seeing the bogus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97090
--- Comment #7 from David Malcolm ---
*** Bug 97411 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97090
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
(In reply to Christophe Lyon from comment #1)
> I see random results from one run to another, so it's likely that something
> is not initialized correctly.
I think it's due to places in -fanalyzer that
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97090
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
PR 97621 reports it as starting on powerpc64*-linux-gnu with r11-4434, which
was a fix for non-determinism in -fanalyzer, so perhaps this is a flaky test
that the non-determinism fixes have made fail more
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97090
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97090
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97090
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|arm |arm aarch64
--- Comment #2 from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=97090
--- Comment #1 from Christophe Lyon ---
I see random results from one run to another, so it's likely that something is
not initialized correctly.
18 matches
Mail list logo
