--- Comment #10 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-09-12
15:38 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] FAIL:
gcc.dg/torture/builtin-cproj-1.c -O1 (test for excess errors)
I have simplified the testcase to include just the two failing portions
from line 160. Some
--- Comment #6 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-07 23:23 ---
Subject: Bug 43959
Author: danglin
Date: Tue Sep 7 23:23:30 2010
New Revision: 163979
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=163979
Log:
PR testsuite/43959
*
--- Comment #7 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-07 23:43 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
Subject: Bug 43959
Author: danglin
Date: Tue Sep 7 23:23:30 2010
New Revision: 163979
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=163979
Log:
PR testsuite/43959
--- Comment #8 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-09-08
00:15 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/builtin-cproj-1.c -O1
(test for excess errors)
This change isn't necessary or correct, the test should (and does) fold away
all references to cproj
--- Comment #9 from danglin at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-08 00:24 ---
Subject: Bug 43959
Author: danglin
Date: Wed Sep 8 00:24:44 2010
New Revision: 163985
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=163985
Log:
Revert
PR testsuite/43959
*
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-02 10:46 ---
Please check whether
Index: gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/builtin-cproj-1.c
===
--- gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/builtin-cproj-1.c (revision
--- Comment #3 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-09-02 15:24 ---
Please check whether
+/* { dg-add-options c99_runtime } */
+/* { dg-require-effective-target c99_runtime } */
You're right that these foldings should succeed anyway, the c99_runtime should
not be necessary. If
--- Comment #4 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2010-09-02
16:27 ---
Subject: Re: [4.6 Regression] FAIL:
gcc.dg/torture/builtin-cproj-1.c -O1 (test for excess errors)
On Thu, 02 Sep 2010, ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
--- Comment #3 from ghazi at
--- Comment #1 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-02 15:26 ---
They are C99 but the testcase does not require c99-targts.
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
