On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 06:06:05PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Feb 8, 2018, at 12:36 PM, Segher Boessenkool <seg...@kernel.crashing.org>
> > On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 03:52:27PM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> >> I dusted the pointed to patch off and check it in. Let us know how it
> >> goes.
> > I wanted to test this on the primary and secondary powerpc targets as
> > well, but okay.
> I reviewed it, and it seemed to only trigger for darwin. Certainly doesn't
> hurt to run a regression run and ensure that is the case.
We'll find out if it regresses :-)
> >> Does this resolve all of PR84113? If so, I can push the bug along.
> > It makes bootstrap work. We don't know if it is correct otherwise.
> So, would be nice if someone could run a regression test. I'd do it by the
> version just before the breakage, and then drop in the patch, and test again.
> This minimizes all the other changes.
Douglas has done a test (C family languages only it seems) at
but it is hard to compare to previous results (not the same config,
long ago, etc.)
> >> What PR was the attachment url from?
> > It is not from a PR, and it has never been sent to gcc-patches; it is
> > from https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2017-01/msg02971.html
> > (attachment #2).
> Ah, that explains it.
> Sounds like 1, 3 and 4 also likely need to go it to make things nice. If
> someone could regression test and let us know, that's likely the gating
Yeah, it's not easy to accept those patches without proper regression
testing, it's stage 4... But the patches probably are good.