On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote:
> How was that change tested? I'm seeing thousands of new UNRESOLVED > failures, of the form: > spawn -ignore SIGHUP /usr/src/gcc/obj415/gcc/xgcc -B/usr/src/gcc/obj415/gcc/ > /usr/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/branch-cost1.c > -fno-diagnostics-show-caret -O2 -fdump-tree-gimple -mbranch-cost=0 -S -o > branch-cost1.s > PASS: gcc.target/i386/branch-cost1.c (test for excess errors) > gcc.target/i386/branch-cost1.c: dump file does not exist > UNRESOLVED: gcc.target/i386/branch-cost1.c scan-tree-dump-times gimple "if " 2 > gcc.target/i386/branch-cost1.c: dump file does not exist > UNRESOLVED: gcc.target/i386/branch-cost1.c scan-tree-dump-not gimple " & " > > See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-11/msg00033.html > or http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-11/msg00034.html, compare that > to http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-11/msg00025.html > or http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-11/msg00026.html > > The difference is just your patch and unrelated sh backend change. I'm seeing the same failures. Sharad, could you fix them or revert your change? Thanks. Diego.
