Hello,
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006, Zdenek Dvorak wrote:
I propose the following workaround instead, that also restores
bootstrap. It changes the way loop-iv uses df to more conservative one,
that does not seem to cause problems.
That's what I like to see... options. Yes, this is OK for
OK to revert this workaround now? Mainline now passes bootstrap
regtesting on i686 without it.
You can approve reversion of your own patches. svnwrite.html says that
no outside approval is needed to revert a patch that you checked in.
Paolo
Zdenek Dvorak wrote:
Hello,
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006, Zdenek Dvorak wrote:
I propose the following workaround instead, that also restores
bootstrap. It changes the way loop-iv uses df to more conservative one,
that does not seem to cause problems.
That's what I like to see...
Zdenek Dvorak [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK to revert this workaround now? Mainline now passes bootstrap
regtesting on i686 without it.
Zdenek
* loop-iv.c (iv_analysis_loop_init): Use df analysis in a more
efficient way.
This is OK.
Thanks.
Ian
Daniel Berlin wrote:
On Fri, 2006-01-20 at 10:53 +0530, Ranjit Mathew wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Mainline fails to bootstrap for me (revision 110017)
on i686-pc-linux-gnu.
Configured as:
$GCC_SRC_DIR/configure --prefix=$HOME/gcc
The tree is still broken for me. Daniel, did you commit your patch?
Andreas
--
Andreas Jaeger, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.suse.de/~aj/
SUSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F FED1 389A 563C C272 A126
Kenneth Zadeck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Daniel Berlin wrote:
The attached fixes *that*, but this just causes a crash deeper in trying to
free some chains.
[...]
Sorry for the problems and thanks for looking into them.
Ken, please reread the email. The issue is *not* fixed according to
(I've sent this first to gcc-patches accidently :(
Kenny thought it would be nice, rather than pass the actual bb info to free
to the freeing function, to instead pass some random bitmap.
The attached fixes *that*, but this just causes a crash deeper in trying to
free some chains.
Andreas Jaeger wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Daniel Berlin wrote:
The attached fixes *that*, but this just causes a crash deeper in trying to
free some chains.
[...]
Sorry for the problems and thanks for looking into them.
Ken, please reread the
Andreas Jaeger wrote:
Kenneth Zadeck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Daniel Berlin wrote:
The attached fixes *that*, but this just causes a crash deeper in trying to
free some chains.
[...]
Sorry for the problems and thanks for looking into them.
Ken, please reread the
On Fri, 2006-01-20 at 12:34 +0100, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
The tree is still broken for me. Daniel, did you commit your patch?
No, because i realized last night that you will just hit the rest of the
problem during bootstrap, without fail.
Andreas
Hello,
The attached fixes *that*, but this just causes a crash deeper in trying
to free some chains.
[...]
Sorry for the problems and thanks for looking into them.
Ken, please reread the email. The issue is *not* fixed according to
Daniel, there's still another problem.
Zdenek Dvorak wrote:
Hello,
The attached fixes *that*, but this just causes a crash deeper in trying
to free some chains.
[...]
Sorry for the problems and thanks for looking into them.
Ken, please reread the email. The issue is *not* fixed according to
On Fri, 2006-01-20 at 16:06 +0100, Zdenek Dvorak wrote:
Hello,
The attached fixes *that*, but this just causes a crash deeper in trying
to free some chains.
[...]
Sorry for the problems and thanks for looking into them.
Ken, please reread the email. The issue is
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
I would like permission to revert Zdenek's patch for a few days. There
is nothing wrong with zdenek's patch, pe se, but it excercises a part of
df that should work but does not.
I'm going to make an executive decision on this one, to restore
Hello,
The attached fixes *that*, but this just causes a crash deeper in
trying
to free some chains.
[...]
Sorry for the problems and thanks for looking into them.
Ken, please reread the email. The issue is *not* fixed according to
Daniel, there's
Hello,
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006, Kenneth Zadeck wrote:
I would like permission to revert Zdenek's patch for a few days. There
is nothing wrong with zdenek's patch, pe se, but it excercises a part of
df that should work but does not.
I'm going to make an executive decision on this one, to
[...]
| Btw.: of course it may happen that some patch sometimes breaks
| bootstrap, it happened to everyone of us. But, with your patch, not
| even libgcc builds. This means that you did not even try to build gcc
| before commiting your patch.
|
| This is simply not true.
| I in
So he updated his tree, saw changes in the middle-end and committed
his without testing.
So Kenny would have had to lauch a new bootstrap, wait for a couple of hours
only to discover that something again changed in-between, and so on?
--
Eric Botcazou
Eric Botcazou [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| So he updated his tree, saw changes in the middle-end and committed
| his without testing.
|
| So Kenny would have had to lauch a new bootstrap, wait for a couple of hours
| only to discover that something again changed in-between, and so on?
I don't
Hello,
So he updated his tree, saw changes in the middle-end and committed
his without testing.
So Kenny would have had to lauch a new bootstrap, wait for a couple of hours
only to discover that something again changed in-between, and so on?
while the testing procedures for gcc
Eric Botcazou wrote:
So he updated his tree, saw changes in the middle-end and committed
his without testing.
So Kenny would have had to lauch a new bootstrap, wait for a couple of hours
only to discover that something again changed in-between, and so on?
This is exactly what I did,
I don't know whether it would take him hours, since the tree does not
even bootstrap, but most certainly Zdenek's statement was accurate and
our commit procedure wasn't observed.
I'm not sure the commit procedure requires you to retest in that case.
--
Eric Botcazou
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006, Zdenek Dvorak wrote:
I propose the following workaround instead, that also restores
bootstrap. It changes the way loop-iv uses df to more conservative one,
that does not seem to cause problems.
That's what I like to see... options. Yes, this is OK for mainline,
please
Hello,
Eric Botcazou wrote:
So he updated his tree, saw changes in the middle-end and committed
his without testing.
So Kenny would have had to lauch a new bootstrap, wait for a couple of
hours only to discover that something again changed in-between, and so on?
This is
This fixes the problems that became apparent from zdeneks patch.
Bootstrapped and regression tested against the version with zdenek's
original code (since this directly tickled the failure and bootstrapped
(and in the process of regression testing) against the current mainline.
Both on
Kenneth Zadeck [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Bootstrapped and regression tested against the version with zdenek's
original code (since this directly tickled the failure and
bootstrapped (and in the process of regression testing) against the
current mainline. Both on i686-pc-linux-gnu.
Kenny
On Fri, 2006-01-20 at 10:53 +0530, Ranjit Mathew wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Mainline fails to bootstrap for me (revision 110017)
on i686-pc-linux-gnu.
Configured as:
$GCC_SRC_DIR/configure --prefix=$HOME/gcc --enable-languages=c,c++,java \
-
28 matches
Mail list logo
