I guess the original fix has problem and we might as well remove it.
Sun
On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 12:52 AM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
>
> I have tested a compiler with the code in question removed. Using the
> testsuites I have available here at HP I have not found any regressions
> due to removing the
I have tested a compiler with the code in question removed. Using the
testsuites I have available here at HP I have not found any regressions
due to removing the code. So I would like to propose this patch as the
fix for bug 497. Can a gatekeeper approve it?
Steve Ellcey
s...@cup.hp.com
$ s
Sun Chan wrote:
> C.
> I assume path64 will have this problem? SL found the problem and
> "ignored" the path64 fix, i guess the right fix need input from the
> tracker
>
fwiw psclang handles this no problem and the engineers working on it
have had zero access to the issue tracker and or path64
Sun Chan wrote:
> Fred? Can you find this out?
>
No the PathScale issue tracker is no more accessible than the internal
HP or AMD bug tracker.
--
Free Software Download: Index, Search & Analyze Logs and other IT data i
C.
I assume path64 will have this problem? SL found the problem and
"ignored" the path64 fix, i guess the right fix need input from the
tracker
Sun
2011/2/23 "C. Bergström" :
> Sun Chan wrote:
>>
>> Fred? Can you find this out?
>>
>
> No the PathScale issue tracker is no more accessible than the i
Fred? Can you find this out?
Sun
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 7:17 AM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> I am looking at bug #497 (https://bugs.open64.net/show_bug.cgi?id=497) and
> created this small test case to show the problem:
>
> #include
> #include
>
> int main() {
> unsigned long long qw;
> float f;
