[Bug target/44850] [4.6 Regression] Many test failures

[jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #5 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-07-07 07:17 ---
Yeah, the amount of regressions is huge, both on x86_64-linux and i686-linux.

The difference is in i386 now overriding config/elfos.h definition:
/* Write the extra assembler code needed to declare a function properly.
   Some svr4 assemblers need to also have something extra said about the
   function's return value.  We allow for that here.  */

#ifndef ASM_DECLARE_FUNCTION_NAME
#define ASM_DECLARE_FUNCTION_NAME(FILE, NAME, DECL) \
  do\
{   \   
  ASM_OUTPUT_TYPE_DIRECTIVE (FILE, NAME, function);   \
  ASM_DECLARE_RESULT (FILE, DECL_RESULT (DECL));\
  ASM_OUTPUT_LABEL (FILE, NAME);\
}   \
  while (0)
#endif

(and config/darwin.h, config/netbsd-aout.h and config/openbsd.h too).


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44850

[Bug target/44850] [4.6 Regression] Many test failures

[hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #6 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-07-07 13:36 ---
Subject: Bug 44850

Author: hjl
Date: Wed Jul  7 13:36:31 2010
New Revision: 161911

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=161911
Log:
Revert revision 161876.

2010-07-07  H.J. Lu  hongjiu...@intel.com

PR target/44850
* config/i386/i386.c (ix86_function_ms_hook_prologue): Revert
revision 161876.
(ix86_expand_prologue): Likewise.
(ix86_handle_fndecl_attribute): Likewise.
(ix86_asm_declare_function_name): Likewise.
* config/i386/i386.h (ASM_DECLARE_FUNCTION_NAME): Likewise.
* config/i386/cygming.h (ASM_DECLARE_FUNCTION_NAME): Likewise.
(SUBTARGET_ASM_DECLARE_FUNCTION_NAME): Likewise.
* config/i386/i386-protos.h (ix86_asm_declare_function_name):
Likewise.
* doc/extend.texi: Likewise.

Modified:
trunk/gcc/ChangeLog
trunk/gcc/config/i386/cygming.h
trunk/gcc/config/i386/i386-protos.h
trunk/gcc/config/i386/i386.c
trunk/gcc/config/i386/i386.h
trunk/gcc/doc/extend.texi


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44850

[Bug target/44850] [4.6 Regression] Many test failures

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

--- Comment #7 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com  2010-07-07 21:41 ---
Fixed.


-- 

hjl dot tools at gmail dot com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
 Resolution||FIXED


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44850

[Bug target/44850] [4.6 Regression] Many test failures

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com  2010-07-07 00:41 ---
There are so many failures that they won't show up at

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-07/

nor

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2010-07/

since the messages are too big.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44850

[Bug target/44850] [4.6 Regression] Many test failures

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-07-07 00:42 ---
Actually it did:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-regression/2010-07/msg00102.html


-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 GCC target triplet||i?86-*-* x86_64-*-*
   Keywords||wrong-code
   Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44850

[Bug target/44850] [4.6 Regression] Many test failures

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

--- Comment #3 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com  2010-07-07 00:44 ---
Mine didn't shown up. In any case, I have 18580+ execution test failures.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44850

[Bug target/44850] [4.6 Regression] Many test failures

[hjl dot tools at gmail dot com]

--- Comment #4 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com  2010-07-07 00:50 ---
I also have MANY execution test failures on Linux/x86-64.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44850