[Bug target/18324] [4.0 regression] mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure: gcc.c-torture/execute/20010518-2.c execution, -O0
--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-14 18:43 --- Known to work with: Sun Nov 14 05:49:38 UTC 2004 (Known to fail with: Sat Nov 13 21:48:30 UTC 2004) -- What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution||FIXED http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18324
[Bug target/18324] [4.0 regression] mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure: gcc.c-torture/execute/20010518-2.c execution, -O0
--- Additional Comments From hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-09 09:18 --- Confirmed on separate system with Tue Nov 9 00:36:20 UTC 2004, still an abort call. -- What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Ever Confirmed||1 Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2004-11-09 09:18:41 date|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18324
[Bug target/18324] [4.0 regression] mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure: gcc.c-torture/execute/20010518-2.c execution, -O0
-- What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18324
[Bug target/18324] [4.0 regression] mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure: gcc.c-torture/execute/20010518-2.c execution, -O0
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-06 23:43 --- I think this and PR 18326 are one in the same bug (the reason why PR 18326 shows up at higher optimzation is because PR 18326 has function which is marked as no inline). They both have packed structs in them. -- What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||18326 nThis|| Keywords||wrong-code http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18324
[Bug target/18324] [4.0 regression] mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure: gcc.c-torture/execute/20010518-2.c execution, -O0
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-11-06 23:47 --- I think this execution problem is the same as PR 18325. -- What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||18325 nThis|| http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18324
