https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #49 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #48)
Can we close this as fixed?
Yes.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #48 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Can we close this as fixed?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #47 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Sat Jun 27 00:46:58 2015
New Revision: 225094
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=225094root=gccview=rev
Log:
gcc/
Backport from mainline
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #41 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #40)
So, chances are gcc-5 would build now?
Maybe. Trying it with Oleg's patch is a good idea.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #40 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #39)
Done. No new failures for the top level make -k check.
So, chances are gcc-5 would build now?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #39 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #38)
I'm testing the patch now. I'll report back when it's done.
Done. No new failures for the top level make -k check.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #42 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #41)
Maybe. Trying it with Oleg's patch is a good idea.
Is it applied yet? Otherwise I really will have to look
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #43 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #42)
Is it applied yet? Otherwise I really will have to look into building gcc-5
from SVN myself.
It's not.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #44 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: olegendo
Date: Thu Jun 25 23:12:07 2015
New Revision: 224988
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=224988root=gccview=rev
Log:
gcc/
PR target/65979
PR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #46 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #45)
Kaz, I wanted to backport the patch to GCC 5. It doesn't apply because on
trunk gen_rtx_SET doesn't take a machine_mode arg. Since
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #45 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Kaz, I wanted to backport the patch to GCC 5. It doesn't apply because on
trunk gen_rtx_SET doesn't take a machine_mode arg. Since SET rtx is always
VOIDmode, it has been removed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #36 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
It seems the tstsi peephole is still wrong. While working on AMS the following
example:
int test (char* x, char* y, int z)
{
return ((x[2] x[3]) == 0) + z;
}
silently produced
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #37 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #36)
It seems the tstsi peephole is still wrong. While working on AMS the
following example:
int test (char* x, char* y, int z)
{
return
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #38 from Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #37)
Kaz, could you please add this to your test runs? For me it's a bit
difficult to do proper testing at the moment.
I'm testing the
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #33 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to Kazumoto Kojima from comment #32)
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #28)
I should have been more clear about these comparison
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #34 from Oleg Endo olegendo at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to John Paul Adrian Glaubitz from comment #33)
It looks that the log for 4.8.4-2 includes
gcc/d/ctfeexpr.dmd.o differs
line just after its 'Bootstrap comparison
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
--- Comment #35 from John Paul Adrian Glaubitz glaubitz at physik dot
fu-berlin.de ---
(In reply to Oleg Endo from comment #34)
If 4.8.something doesn't bootstrap, it would be a 4.8 Regression type of
bug. I'd move it to a new PR.
Already.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65979
Kazumoto Kojima kkojima at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|[4.9/5/6 Regression] [SH] |[5/6
19 matches
Mail list logo
