Hi Mike,

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> 
> wrote:
> > 
> > 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 
> factor.

Yeah, it's not easy to accept those patches without proper regression
testing, it's stage 4...  But the patches probably are good.


Reply via email to