On 04/06/2011 12:15 AM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> I finally got a good bootstrap on IA64 HP-UX. I used this patch, Jeff's
> patch for PR 48444 (already checked in) and Nathan's patch for PR 48471.
> So yes, I'd like to see this patch checked in too.
Done.
Bernd
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 23:06 +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> Yes, possibly, and there is still the other issue that Jeff is working on.
>
> Given my results and that your patch from this thread apparently only
> restores
> the old behaviour, I'd install this patch.
I finally got a good bootstrap
> > After having done another round of testing, let me recap:
> > 1. yesterday's pristine tree yields the bootstrap comparison failure on
> > the IA-64/Linux machine,
> > 2. yesterday's pristine tree + your 2 patches to haifa-sched.c
> > successfully bootstraps on the IA-64/Linux machine.
>
> S
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 22:31 +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 04/05/2011 07:48 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> >> Looking into it. I ran into PR48441, I assume you were using the patch
> >> from that as well?
> >
> > It's yesterday's tree + your 2 patches to haifa-sched.c, so without
> > Steven's
> >
On 04/05/2011 07:48 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> Looking into it. I ran into PR48441, I assume you were using the patch
>> from that as well?
>
> It's yesterday's tree + your 2 patches to haifa-sched.c, so without Steven's
> patch... at least it was supposed to be, but I screwed up, sorry about th
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 20:18 +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > What are the two patches to haifa-sched.c? I have one patch to
> > schedule_block from
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-04/msg00271.html
> > but that patch (alone or with the Jeff Law patch) isn't working for me
> > on IA64 Linu
> What are the two patches to haifa-sched.c? I have one patch to
> schedule_block from
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-04/msg00271.html
> but that patch (alone or with the Jeff Law patch) isn't working for me
> on IA64 Linux. Is there a second haifa-sched.c patch I should also
> have?
N
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 19:48 +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > Looking into it. I ran into PR48441, I assume you were using the patch
> > from that as well?
>
> It's yesterday's tree + your 2 patches to haifa-sched.c, so without Steven's
> patch... at least it was supposed to be, but I screwed up, s
> Looking into it. I ran into PR48441, I assume you were using the patch
> from that as well?
It's yesterday's tree + your 2 patches to haifa-sched.c, so without Steven's
patch... at least it was supposed to be, but I screwed up, sorry about that.
After having done another round of testing, let
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 09:41 -0700, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> Hm, I just tried a bootstrap build on IA64 HP-UX using the haifa-sched.c
> patch and r171988 and I got this error during stage 2:
>
>
> /proj/opensrc_nobackup/sje/reg/src/trunk/gcc/genautomata.c: In function
> 'create_
> automata':
> /pro
On Tue, 2011-04-05 at 17:54 +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 04/05/2011 04:32 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> >> The patch below fixes the testcase in the PR. I'll test
> >> tonight/tomorrow, probably on mips64-elf. Ok if that passes?
> >
> > I get back the comparison failure with it on IA-64/Linux:
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/05/11 10:10, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 04/05/2011 06:08 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
>> On 04/05/11 09:54, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>>> On 04/05/2011 04:32 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> The patch below fixes the testcase in the PR. I'll test
> tonight/to
On 04/05/2011 06:08 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> On 04/05/11 09:54, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>> On 04/05/2011 04:32 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
The patch below fixes the testcase in the PR. I'll test
tonight/tomorrow, probably on mips64-elf. Ok if that passes?
>>>
>>> I get back the comparison failure
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/05/11 09:54, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> On 04/05/2011 04:32 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>>> The patch below fixes the testcase in the PR. I'll test
>>> tonight/tomorrow, probably on mips64-elf. Ok if that passes?
>>
>> I get back the comparison failure
On 04/05/2011 04:32 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> The patch below fixes the testcase in the PR. I'll test
>> tonight/tomorrow, probably on mips64-elf. Ok if that passes?
>
> I get back the comparison failure with it on IA-64/Linux:
Looking into it. I ran into PR48441, I assume you were using the pa
> The patch below fixes the testcase in the PR. I'll test
> tonight/tomorrow, probably on mips64-elf. Ok if that passes?
I get back the comparison failure with it on IA-64/Linux:
Comparing stages 2 and 3
warning: gcc/cc1-checksum.o differs
warning: gcc/cc1plus-checksum.o differs
Bootstrap compari
On 03/24/2011 02:19 PM, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> We can currently select an insn to be scheduled, only to find out that
> it's not actually valid at the current time, either due to state
> conflicts or being an asm with something else already scheduled in the
> same cycle. Not only is this pointless,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/24/11 07:19, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
> We can currently select an insn to be scheduled, only to find out that
> it's not actually valid at the current time, either due to state
> conflicts or being an asm with something else already scheduled in the
We can currently select an insn to be scheduled, only to find out that
it's not actually valid at the current time, either due to state
conflicts or being an asm with something else already scheduled in the
same cycle. Not only is this pointless, it causes problem with the
sched_reorder logic in th
19 matches
Mail list logo
