[Bug middle-end/61225] [5 Regression] Several new failures after r210458 on x86_64-*-* with -m32

2015-02-03 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225 --- Comment #22 from Segher Boessenkool segher at gcc dot gnu.org --- Author: segher Date: Tue Feb 3 12:15:32 2015 New Revision: 220370 URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220370root=gccview=rev Log: PR middle-end/61225

[Bug middle-end/61225] [5 Regression] Several new failures after r210458 on x86_64-*-* with -m32

2015-02-02 Thread law at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225 --- Comment #21 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com --- From my experimentations, I don't see a reasonable way to fix this in stage4 except via some horrid define_peep2. We don't have the LOG_LINKS we need to do a good job on this during

[Bug middle-end/61225] [5 Regression] Several new failures after r210458 on x86_64-*-* with -m32

2015-02-01 Thread segher at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225 Segher Boessenkool segher at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||segher at

[Bug middle-end/61225] [5 Regression] Several new failures after r210458 on x86_64-*-* with -m32

2015-01-28 Thread ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225 --- Comment #19 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE --- --- Comment #18 from Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com --- Rainer, Zhenqiang has left GCC development. I didn't know that: now wonder the

[Bug middle-end/61225] [5 Regression] Several new failures after r210458 on x86_64-*-* with -m32

2015-01-27 Thread law at redhat dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225 Jeffrey A. Law law at redhat dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||law at redhat dot

[Bug middle-end/61225] [5 Regression] Several new failures after r210458 on x86_64-*-* with -m32

2015-01-22 Thread ro at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225 Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ro at gcc dot gnu.org

[Bug middle-end/61225] [5 Regression] Several new failures after r210458 on x86_64-*-* with -m32

2014-12-07 Thread zhenqiang.chen at arm dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225 --- Comment #16 from Zhenqiang Chen zhenqiang.chen at arm dot com --- Still in discussions in two threads about Combine and Compare-elim. [PATCH] Fix PR 61225 https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-12/msg00558.html

[Bug middle-end/61225] [5 Regression] Several new failures after r210458 on x86_64-*-* with -m32

2014-11-21 Thread zhenqiang.chen at arm dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225 --- Comment #15 from Zhenqiang Chen zhenqiang.chen at arm dot com --- Thank you for the reminder. I will rework the patch.

[Bug middle-end/61225] [5 Regression] Several new failures after r210458 on x86_64-*-* with -m32

2014-11-20 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords|

[Bug middle-end/61225] [5 Regression] Several new failures after r210458 on x86_64-*-* with -m32

2014-11-19 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225 Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |WAITING ---

[Bug middle-end/61225] [5 Regression] Several new failures after r210458 on x86_64-*-* with -m32

2014-11-19 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225 --- Comment #13 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr --- Still failing? Yes. I don't see them with x86_64 -m32 testing. Is this happening on darwin only? No, see https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2014-11/msg02035.html.

[Bug middle-end/61225] [5 Regression] Several new failures after r210458 on x86_64-*-* with -m32

2014-09-10 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61225 --- Comment #11 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr --- Yes. I see. The patch is in review. But no feedback although I had pinged it for three times. https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-06/msg01325.html I will go on