[Bug testsuite/96525] new test gcc.target/powerpc/pr96493.c fails

2020-08-12 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96525 --- Comment #10 from CVS Commits --- The releases/gcc-10 branch has been updated by Alan Modra : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:c99b2c529befc24bdd0cd6ca20ff8c99f70628ae commit r10-8616-gc99b2c529befc24bdd0cd6ca20ff8c99f70628ae Author: Alan Modra Date:

[Bug testsuite/96525] new test gcc.target/powerpc/pr96493.c fails

2020-08-11 Thread amodra at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96525 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|ASSIGNED

[Bug testsuite/96525] new test gcc.target/powerpc/pr96493.c fails

2020-08-11 Thread cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96525 --- Comment #8 from CVS Commits --- The master branch has been updated by Alan Modra : https://gcc.gnu.org/g:2ba0674c657fb2089d8aae4f8c254ce0559c8f53 commit r11-2660-g2ba0674c657fb2089d8aae4f8c254ce0559c8f53 Author: Alan Modra Date: Mon Aug

[Bug testsuite/96525] new test gcc.target/powerpc/pr96493.c fails

2020-08-10 Thread bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96525 --- Comment #7 from Peter Bergner --- (In reply to seurer from comment #6) > That changed the test to unsupported on the p8 where it had failed > previously. [snip] > # of unsupported tests1 That is what I would expect on a

[Bug testsuite/96525] new test gcc.target/powerpc/pr96493.c fails

2020-08-10 Thread seurer at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96525 --- Comment #6 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org --- That changed the test to unsupported on the p8 where it had failed previously. Executing on host: /home/seurer/gcc/git/build/gcc-test/gcc/xgcc -B/home/seurer/gcc/git/build/gcc-test/gcc/

[Bug testsuite/96525] new test gcc.target/powerpc/pr96493.c fails

2020-08-09 Thread bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96525 --- Comment #5 from Peter Bergner --- (In reply to Alan Modra from comment #4) > I could make the test { do-do link } but running the test is just that > little bit better test of the linker output, and as far as I know there > isn't a way of

[Bug testsuite/96525] new test gcc.target/powerpc/pr96493.c fails

2020-08-09 Thread amodra at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96525 Alan Modra changed: What|Removed |Added Last reconfirmed||2020-08-10 Assignee|unassigned

[Bug testsuite/96525] new test gcc.target/powerpc/pr96493.c fails

2020-08-07 Thread bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96525 --- Comment #3 from Peter Bergner --- (In reply to Peter Bergner from comment #2) > Ah, you probably are and this issue is the test case probably needs a: > > /* { dg-require-effective-target power10_ok } */ > > To ensure we have a working

[Bug testsuite/96525] new test gcc.target/powerpc/pr96493.c fails

2020-08-07 Thread bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96525 --- Comment #2 from Peter Bergner --- Ah, you probably are and this issue is the test case probably needs a: /* { dg-require-effective-target power10_ok } */ To ensure we have a working power10 enabled binutils.

[Bug testsuite/96525] new test gcc.target/powerpc/pr96493.c fails

2020-08-07 Thread bergner at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96525 --- Comment #1 from Peter Bergner --- This is an assembler error saying it doesn't know about .machine "power10". Are you sure you're not using an old binutils?