[Bug target/60732] FAIL: g++.dg/ext/altivec-7.C -std=* scan-assembler _Z3fooDv*

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60732 Dominique d'Humieres changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|---

[Bug target/60732] FAIL: g++.dg/ext/altivec-7.C -std=* scan-assembler _Z3fooDv*

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60732 --- Comment #9 from Mike Stump mikestump at comcast dot net --- So, I’m still left wondering if the difference in behavior between linux and darwin is a bug in itself or not… Do we know which code or what change gives rise to that?

[Bug target/60732] FAIL: g++.dg/ext/altivec-7.C -std=* scan-assembler _Z3fooDv*

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60732 --- Comment #10 from Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org --- (In reply to Mike Stump from comment #9) So, I’m still left wondering if the difference in behavior between linux and darwin is a bug in itself or not… Do we know which code or what

[Bug target/60732] FAIL: g++.dg/ext/altivec-7.C -std=* scan-assembler _Z3fooDv*

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60732 --- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr --- Therefore, I concur that the correct action is to have two tests - one for each ABI and run both tests on all targets. Is the following patch what you have in mind

[Bug target/60732] FAIL: g++.dg/ext/altivec-7.C -std=* scan-assembler _Z3fooDv*

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60732 --- Comment #8 from Brooks Moses brooks at gcc dot gnu.org --- Yup, that's essentially exactly what I had in mind, with a couple of minor adjustments: * I'd use your original patch of -fabi-version=0 to altivec-7.C, so that we're continuing to

[Bug target/60732] FAIL: g++.dg/ext/altivec-7.C -std=* scan-assembler _Z3fooDv*

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60732 Iain Sandoe iains at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW Last

[Bug target/60732] FAIL: g++.dg/ext/altivec-7.C -std=* scan-assembler _Z3fooDv*

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60732 --- Comment #5 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr --- Mike, what do you think is the best solution here? We could use Dominique's patch with a comment to the effect that New-ABI symbols are always emitted on Linux, but only

[Bug target/60732] FAIL: g++.dg/ext/altivec-7.C -std=* scan-assembler _Z3fooDv*

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60732 --- Comment #3 from Dominique d'Humieres dominiq at lps dot ens.fr --- Dominique, what does the generated assembly look like in the (failing) Darwin case? Without -fabi-version=0 (or with -fabi-version=1 to 3), I get the pre r203469 manglings:

[Bug target/60732] FAIL: g++.dg/ext/altivec-7.C -std=* scan-assembler _Z3fooDv*

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60732 --- Comment #4 from Brooks Moses brooks at gcc dot gnu.org --- Interesting. As noted, with -fabi-version=[1 to 3] on Linux, I was getting both sets. Mike, what do you think is the best solution here? We could use Dominique's patch with a

[Bug target/60732] FAIL: g++.dg/ext/altivec-7.C -std=* scan-assembler _Z3fooDv*

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60732 mrs at gcc dot gnu.org mrs at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mrs at gcc