On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 11:10:48 +0100
Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Jonathan Wakely
jwakely@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 March 2012 15:40, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Kai Tietz
ktiet...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote:
On 15 March 2012 15:40, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com wrote:
Richard,
ping. I think now could be a good time for applying the patch you
have for this
On 15 March 2012 15:40, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com wrote:
Richard,
ping. I think now could be a good time for applying the patch you
have for this issue as we are in stage 1.
It will still regress the two libstdc++ testcases
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com wrote:
2012/2/9 Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com:
Works apart from
Running target unix/
FAIL: ext/pb_ds/regression/trie_map_rand.cc execution test
FAIL: ext/pb_ds/regression/trie_set_rand.cc execution test
Maybe
Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com writes:
Hmm, I see in libstdc++'s file include/bits/boost_concept_check.h some
use of '*__i++ = *__i;' and '*__i-- = *__i;', which seems to cause
part of this failure.
I don't think those __constraints functions are ever executed. They are
only present to
On 10 February 2012 10:35, Richard Guenther wrote:
Works apart from
Running target unix/
FAIL: ext/pb_ds/regression/trie_map_rand.cc execution test
FAIL: ext/pb_ds/regression/trie_set_rand.cc execution test
What does libstdc++.log show for those failures?
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 February 2012 10:35, Richard Guenther wrote:
Works apart from
Running target unix/
FAIL: ext/pb_ds/regression/trie_map_rand.cc execution test
FAIL: ext/pb_ds/regression/trie_set_rand.cc execution test
What
2012/2/10 Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com wrote:
2012/2/9 Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com:
Works apart from
Running target unix/
FAIL: ext/pb_ds/regression/trie_map_rand.cc execution test
FAIL:
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com wrote:
2012/1/11 Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com:
count despite being declared volatile and only loaded once in the source
is loaded twice in gimple. If it were a HW register which destroys the
device after the
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com wrote:
2012/1/11 Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com:
count despite being declared volatile and only loaded once in the source
is
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com wrote:
2012/1/11 Richard Guenther
2012/2/9 Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com wrote:
2012/2/9 Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com:
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:53 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
2012/1/11 Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com:
count despite being declared volatile and only loaded once in the source
is loaded twice in gimple. If it were a HW register which destroys the
device after the 2nd load without an intervening store you'd wrecked
the device ;)
Richard.
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com wrote:
2012/1/10 Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com wrote:
Ping
2012/1/8 Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com:
Hi,
this patch makes sure that for
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com wrote:
2012/1/10 Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com wrote:
Ping
2012/1/11 Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com wrote:
2012/1/10 Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com wrote:
2012/1/11 Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Richard Guenther
richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com wrote:
Ping
2012/1/8 Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com:
Hi,
this patch makes sure that for increment of
postfix-increment/decrement we use also orignal lvalue instead of tmp
lhs value for increment. This fixes reported
2012/1/10 Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com wrote:
Ping
2012/1/8 Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com:
Hi,
this patch makes sure that for increment of
postfix-increment/decrement we use also orignal lvalue instead
20 matches
Mail list logo
