http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48299
Uros Bizjak ubizjak at gmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48299
--- Comment #22 from pmarlier at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-28 15:37:57 UTC ---
Author: pmarlier
Date: Tue Feb 28 15:37:41 2012
New Revision: 184628
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=184628
Log:
2012-02-27 Jack Howarth
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48299
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48299
--- Comment #19 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-27 11:06:43 UTC ---
--- Comment #18 from Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2012-02-27
10:32:28 UTC ---
It fails everywhere. But we
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48299
--- Comment #20 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2012-02-27
13:54:20 UTC ---
Can folks on other failing targets try the backport of the thread_leak_test.c
from upstream bdwgc? This seems to solve the issue on
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48299
--- Comment #21 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2012-02-27
16:44:56 UTC ---
Patch posted at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-02/msg01341.html.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48299
--- Comment #16 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2012-02-25
02:23:06 UTC ---
Created attachment 26749
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26749
back port of thread_leak_test.c from ivmai-bdwgc-8b168d0
The random
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48299
--- Comment #17 from Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu 2012-02-25
02:27:14 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
Note that at r184560 with the back ported thread_leak_test.c changes applied, I
am able to run the 64-bit thread_leak_test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48299
Jack Howarth howarth at nitro dot med.uc.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||howarth at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48299
Andreas Krebbel krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||krebbel at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48299
Richard Guenther rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last
gnu.org [mailto:gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 5:27 PM
To: Boehm, Hans
Subject: [Bug boehm-gc/48299] [4.7 Regression] FAIL: boehm-
gc.c/thread_leak_test.c
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48299
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48299
Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48299
Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||Hans.Boehm at hp dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48299
--- Comment #10 from Rainer Orth ro at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-03-30 15:57:54
UTC ---
Btw., I forgot: could you try to compile that testcase on the 4.6 branch with
the same options used for leak_test.c, just to make sure this isn't caused
by my dg
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48299
--- Comment #11 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2011-03-30 20:25:24 UTC ---
Btw., I forgot: could you try to compile that testcase on the 4.6 branch with
the same options used for leak_test.c, just to make sure this isn't
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48299
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2011-03-29
11:21:53 UTC ---
At revision 171632 the test also failed on x86_64-apple-darwin10.7.0:
...
Executing on host: ../libtool --silent --tag=CC --mode=link
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48299
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-29 11:30:31 UTC ---
--- Comment #4 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr
2011-03-29 11:21:53 UTC ---
At revision 171632 the test
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48299
--- Comment #6 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2011-03-29
11:39:58 UTC ---
This either suggests a different change being responsible or a timing
issue. Some of those tests can be quite sensitive to load.
Could you try to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48299
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-29 11:46:29 UTC ---
The failing test occured on a quiet state: i.e., terminal, safari, and xchat
opened but not used.
The tests run in a fraction
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48299
--- Comment #8 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2011-03-29
15:12:00 UTC ---
Run make check in boehm-gc/testsuite instead. Better yet, just build
the failing test once and manually rerun it in a loop with
LD_LIBRARY_PATH or
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48299
--- Comment #1 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-28 08:49:47 UTC ---
Could you please check if this test worked before my patch? It may have
been that the failure simply went unnoticed.
Thanks.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48299
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu hjl.tools at gmail dot com 2011-03-28 12:31:35
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
Could you please check if this test worked before my patch? It may have
been that the failure simply went unnoticed.
I don't think
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48299
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ro at CeBiTec dot
Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-03-28 12:40:06 UTC ---
I don't think thread_leak_test.c was tested before.
In that case, please try to compile it with the same flags used for one
of
24 matches
Mail list logo
