https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=119377
--- Comment #28 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Robert Dubner from comment #24) > It's my belief that the last thing I talked about, which had to do with > valgrind warning about the read access of uninitialized alignment padding > bytes in a cbl_declarative_t structure, has been resolved. (A memcpy of the > entire structure has been eliminated.) > > This discussion covered a lot of ground, and some of it is on architectures > to which I do not, as yet, have access. > > Is there any reason to keep this PR open? each time you make a change - I retest on Darwin - there are still ≈90 fails of the variety reported above - so the valgrind findings are clearly only part of the issue. until those are resolved it's not practical to have cobol in the regular test schedule for x86_64 / aarch64 darwin.
