http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32347
Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32347
Peter Bergner bergner at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bergner at gcc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32347
--- Comment #17 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2012-01-22 16:51:12 UTC ---
Is the test still failing? It does not appear in the
powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu logs (both -m32 and -m64) at
--- Comment #16 from dje at watson dot ibm dot com 2007-06-22 16:44 ---
Subject: Re: ICE on gcc/testsuite/gcc-dg/vmx/ops.c
There are much more constructive ways in which to interact with
the GCC community, GCC developers, and port maintainers than you have
chosen to pursue.
--- Comment #15 from geoffk at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-21 18:31 ---
Doesn't fail on powerpc-darwin (nor apparently on powerpc-aix).
--
geoffk at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #14 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-21 00:53 ---
This whole series of postings from myself had one aim:
to _shame_ Messrs David Edelsohn an Geoff Keating to step up to their
resposibilities. You, Pinski, are not listed as a maintainer for RS600; they
are.
Mr
--- Comment #12 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-19 23:57 ---
Why is this still unconfirmed after the corrobation by Mrs Johnson?
Personally I could not care less if it is swept under the rug, like so many
other
PR's. Without-altivec would suit me fine as altivec is, to me,
--- Comment #13 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-20 00:27
---
This is a target bug. Nothing can change it from being a target bug unless it
turns out to be a middle-end bug on how addressing works inside the compiler.
The main reason why it has not been confirmed, is
--- Comment #11 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-17 00:14 ---
Thank you Mrs Johnson for putting in (by my reckoning) an inordinate amount of
hours to put some bounds on this problems.
I am sure you are aware of the old adage A stitch in time saves nine. If some
--- Comment #9 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-15 23:40 ---
This makes no sense to me, but I'll report it in case it does to someone else.
With compilers for powerpc64-linux, the test compiled with -c -O2 -mcpu=7450
(or -Os instead of -O2) passes with GCC 4.0 and fails with
--- Comment #10 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-15 23:42 ---
Created an attachment (id=13711)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13711action=view)
smaller testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32347
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot
|
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-14 20:53 ---
Why did you remove me?
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #3 from spark at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-14 21:10 ---
Adding our bugmaster to CC.
--
spark at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-14 21:19 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
Adding our bugmaster to CC.
Well in this case, I am more of a PPC guy and not the bugmaster. I think I
know what the issue is already, but since you did --disable-altivec which
does not
--- Comment #5 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-14 21:42 ---
Smart comment, unfortunately it is wrong. I spotted this myself and quickly
rebootstrapped gcc the results are:
Reading specs from /var/tmp/gcc_r43/build-26/gcc/specs
Target: powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu
Configured
--- Comment #6 from malitzke at metronets dot com 2007-06-14 21:50 ---
This is just a more conspicuous case as evidenced looking at the data below.
The almost 2:1 worse results for the powerpc show up day after day, month after
month.
Powerpc G4 gcc-4.3.0-20070613 check results
--- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-14 21:56 ---
These are the results I get from a couple of (3) days old on powerpc64-linux:
=== gcc Summary for unix//-m32 ===
# of expected passes46391
# of unexpected failures16
# of
--- Comment #8 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-06-14 22:10 ---
I get the same failure with my nightly build compiler for powerpc64-linux with
-m32 -Os -mcpu=7450. I'll minimize the testcase and perhaps that nice young
man Andrew Pinski will fix the bug for us.
--
19 matches
Mail list logo
