--- Additional Comments From jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-07-04 10:47
---
On hppa64-hp-hpux11.23, appeared between 2005-06-27 07:39 UTC and 2005-06-27
07:42 UTC, so stack protection patch is responsible.
On ia64-hp-hpux11.23, appeared between 2005-06-28 19:33 UTC and 2005-06-28
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||EH, sjlj-eh, wrong-code
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
--
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|sjlj-eh |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22284
--- Additional Comments From jakub at redhat dot com 2005-07-03 12:08
---
Strange, I have certainly bootstrapped/regtested the initial -fstack-protector
patch on ia64-linux and there were no regressions, neither on HEAD
(20050625 tree + those patches) nor in the 4.0.1 backport.
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-07-03
12:17 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] Many C++ testsuite failures
On Sun, 3 Jul 2005, jakub at redhat dot com wrote:
Strange, I have certainly bootstrapped/regtested the initial -fstack-protector
patch on
--- Additional Comments From jakub at redhat dot com 2005-07-03 13:40
---
Ok, I can now reproduce the g++.dg/eh/cond1.C failure with trunk GCC.
It works well when run against 4.0 libstdc++.so, or 20050625 HEAD one
(but in that case built with the -fstack-protector patch in).
Now, g++
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2005-07-03
13:54 ---
Subject: Re: [4.1 Regression] Many C++ testsuite failures
On Sun, 3 Jul 2005, jakub at redhat dot com wrote:
Ok, I can now reproduce the g++.dg/eh/cond1.C failure with trunk GCC.
It works well when run
--
What|Removed |Added
CC||danglin at gcc dot gnu dot
||org
