https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=124547
--- Comment #9 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE> --- > --- Comment #7 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr118713-10.c scan-assembler call[ \t]*\\*% > FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr118713-10.c scan-assembler movl[ \t]*bar@GOT, > FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr118713-11.c scan-assembler jmp[ \t]*\\*% > FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr118713-11.c scan-assembler movl[ \t]*bar@GOT, > FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr118713-12.c scan-assembler call[ \t]*\\*% > FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr118713-12.c scan-assembler movl[ \t]*bar@GOT, > FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr118713-9.c scan-assembler jmp[ \t]*\\*% > FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pr118713-9.c scan-assembler movl[ \t]*bar@GOT, > > are possibly related -m32 fails. Certainly, yes. They were detected by Haochen Jiang's autotester already.
