On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 12:29 PM, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 12:22 PM, FX wrote:
>>> This looks wrong. This test should pass for 64-bit or ia32 && nonpic.
>>
>> It was Kai’s original testcase, so I don’t want to modify it too much, other
>> than make it skip where it clearly fails
On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 12:22 PM, FX wrote:
>> This looks wrong. This test should pass for 64-bit or ia32 && nonpic.
>
> It was Kai’s original testcase, so I don’t want to modify it too much, other
> than make it skip where it clearly fails.
>
Original bug report was filed against x86-64:
The
> This looks wrong. This test should pass for 64-bit or ia32 && nonpic.
It was Kai’s original testcase, so I don’t want to modify it too much, other
than make it skip where it clearly fails.
FX
On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 11:46 AM, FX wrote:
> Don’t run gcc.target/i386/sibcall-1.c on PIC targets.
>
>
> 2014-11-15 Francois-Xavier Coudert
>
> PR target/60104
> * gcc.target/i386/sibcall-1.c: Don't run on pic targets.
>
>
> Index: gcc.target/i386/sibcall-1.c
>
Don’t run gcc.target/i386/sibcall-1.c on PIC targets.
2014-11-15 Francois-Xavier Coudert
PR target/60104
* gcc.target/i386/sibcall-1.c: Don't run on pic targets.
Index: gcc.target/i386/sibcall-1.c
===
--- gcc.ta
