[Bug middle-end/51871] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20010122-1.c execution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51871 --- Comment #4 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-01-19 14:34:56 UTC --- On 1/19/2012 7:55 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > So, you are not sure this is a regression? Yes.
[Bug middle-end/51871] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20010122-1.c execution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51871 --- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-19 12:55:26 UTC --- So, you are not sure this is a regression?
[Bug middle-end/51871] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20010122-1.c execution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51871 --- Comment #2 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-01-17 13:04:28 UTC --- On 17-Jan-12, at 4:51 AM, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > Can you specify a range for working/failing revisions? Not at the moment. The build was done with the --with-arch=2.0 to check 32-bit PA2.0 code generation. I don't usually configure with this option. I note the test uses __builtin_return_address (1). This may not behave correctly. The test didn't fail on hppa-linux with --with-arch=2.0. However, there are differences in call stubs. This is what makes __builtin_return_address difficult. Needs some debugging. Dave -- John David Anglindave.ang...@bell.net
[Bug middle-end/51871] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20010122-1.c execution
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51871 Richard Guenther changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0 --- Comment #1 from Richard Guenther 2012-01-17 09:51:39 UTC --- Can you specify a range for working/failing revisions?
