[Bug testsuite/29071] gcc.dg/20020919-1.c compilation test fails on powerpc-apple-darwin8 at -m64

2010-08-24 Thread howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu
--- Comment #11 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2010-08-24 10:53 --- Fixed at r142696. -- howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug testsuite/29071] gcc.dg/20020919-1.c compilation test fails on powerpc-apple-darwin8 at -m64

2008-12-12 Thread janis at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #10 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-12 19:41 --- There are no archived test results for powerpc64-*-darwin*, so if someone can verify that this fixes the test, please report that here or close this PR. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29071

[Bug testsuite/29071] gcc.dg/20020919-1.c compilation test fails on powerpc-apple-darwin8 at -m64

2008-12-11 Thread janis at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #9 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-11 23:38 --- Subject: Bug 29071 Author: janis Date: Thu Dec 11 23:37:03 2008 New Revision: 142696 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=142696 Log: PR testsuite/29071 * gcc.dg/20020919-1.c: Fix a

[Bug testsuite/29071] gcc.dg/20020919-1.c compilation test fails on powerpc-apple-darwin8 at -m64

2008-12-10 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
--- Comment #8 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-12-10 20:31 --- PING! see comment #5. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29071

[Bug testsuite/29071] gcc.dg/20020919-1.c compilation test fails on powerpc-apple-darwin8 at -m64

2008-06-27 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
--- Comment #7 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-06-27 11:53 --- Before the patch I had: ... === gcc Summary for unix/-m64 === # of expected passes49011 # of unexpected failures41 # of unexpected successes 3 # of expected failures

[Bug testsuite/29071] gcc.dg/20020919-1.c compilation test fails on powerpc-apple-darwin8 at -m64

2008-06-26 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
--- Comment #5 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-06-26 21:21 --- Could the patch in comment #4 be commited? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29071

[Bug testsuite/29071] gcc.dg/20020919-1.c compilation test fails on powerpc-apple-darwin8 at -m64

2008-06-26 Thread dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr
--- Comment #6 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2008-06-26 21:29 --- Forgot to say that I also see this pr on powerpc-apple-darwin9. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29071

[Bug testsuite/29071] gcc.dg/20020919-1.c compilation test fails on powerpc-apple-darwin8 at -m64

2008-05-20 Thread janis at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from janis at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-05-20 21:45 --- Isn't the proposal in comment #3 the same as this? Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/20020919-1.c === --- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/20020919-1.c (revision

[Bug testsuite/29071] gcc.dg/20020919-1.c compilation test fails on powerpc-apple-darwin8 at -m64

2007-12-21 Thread howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu
--- Comment #2 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2007-12-21 15:11 --- I just noticed that passing -D__powerpc64__ on the compile line for this test at -m64 for powerpc-apple-darwin9 allows the missed clobbers seem to be detected. Shouldn't... # ifndef __powerpc64__ #

[Bug testsuite/29071] gcc.dg/20020919-1.c compilation test fails on powerpc-apple-darwin8 at -m64

2007-12-21 Thread howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu
--- Comment #3 from howarth at nitro dot med dot uc dot edu 2007-12-21 15:46 --- Wouldn't something like... --- 20020919-1.c.org2007-12-21 10:28:40.0 -0500 +++ 20020919-1.c2007-12-21 10:44:27.0 -0500 @@ -41,7 +41,9 @@ || defined (__POWERPC__) ||