https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28457
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28457
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28457
Benjamin Kosnik changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
--- Comment #8 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-07-15 07:38 ---
The audit log for this PR is awfully quiet... Ping?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28457
--- Comment #7 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-10-06 16:07 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> try again.
Certainly I can confirm that the problem cannot be reproduced anymore by
tweaking the random seed to 1153519516.
> the thing about (now) throw_allocator is that if some of the testcas
--- Comment #6 from bkoz at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-06 10:41 ---
try again.
the thing about (now) throw_allocator is that if some of the testcases have
allocated memory and then an exception is thrown, the "leaked" memory is
actually testsuite-type temporaries that should have been
--- Comment #5 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-08-25 17:18 ---
I'm looking a bit into this: one puzzling thing is that the corresponding leak
as reported by valgrind amounts to *zero* bytes... It may well be that
something is wrong in the testing machinery / internal leak detection cod
--- Comment #4 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-07-26 14:55 ---
Confirmed on x86-linux. I did:
Index: rand_regression_test.hpp
===
--- rand_regression_test.hpp(revision 115714)
+++ rand_regression_test.hpp(working
--- Comment #3 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-07-26 13:27 ---
Thanks a lot for your feedback. Then, I think we should look first for things
like uninitialized variables and/or miscompilations.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28457
--- Comment #2 from drow at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-07-26 13:11 ---
Subject: Re: ext/pb_ds/regression/tree_data_map_rand.cc fails with a
particular random seed.
On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 11:26:01AM -, pcarlini at suse dot de wrote:
> Out of curiosity, can you try whether changing th
--- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2006-07-26 11:26 ---
Out of curiosity, can you try whether changing the optimization level has any
effect? I'm asking because we are also seeing random failures of
ext/pb_ds/regression/priority_queue_rand.cc on ia64-linux which go away at -O0
a
11 matches
Mail list logo
