[Bug tree-optimization/39251] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C scan-tree-dump-not forwprop1 "= .* \+ -"

2021-12-12 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39251 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0 Status|NEW

[Bug tree-optimization/39251] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C scan-tree-dump-not forwprop1 = .* \+ -

2012-09-23 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39251 Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added Known to fail|| ---

[Bug tree-optimization/39251] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C scan-tree-dump-not forwprop1 = .* \+ -

2012-09-23 Thread dave.anglin at bell dot net
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39251 --- Comment #12 from dave.anglin at bell dot net 2012-09-23 22:40:10 UTC --- Test hasn't been removed. I also don't see the fail anymore. -- John David Anglindave.ang...@bell.net

[Bug tree-optimization/39251] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C scan-tree-dump-not forwprop1 = .* \+ -

2010-01-15 Thread ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #9 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-15 09:05 --- (In reply to comment #8) Hi Mark, Many thanks for looking into this. However, if this is behaving different on ARM from (say) x86, I think that the ABI is a likely cause because, as you say, the C++ ABI

[Bug tree-optimization/39251] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C scan-tree-dump-not forwprop1 = .* \+ -

2010-01-15 Thread mark at codesourcery dot com
--- Comment #10 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2010-01-15 15:05 --- Subject: Re: FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C scan-tree-dump-not forwprop1 = .* \+ - ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote: So yes it does look ARM specific . Also peeking at results on gcc-testresults doesn't show

[Bug tree-optimization/39251] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C scan-tree-dump-not forwprop1 = .* \+ -

2010-01-14 Thread ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #6 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-15 01:09 --- Created an attachment (id=19603) -- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=19603action=view) Dumps from testcase. dumps attached. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39251

[Bug tree-optimization/39251] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C scan-tree-dump-not forwprop1 = .* \+ -

2010-01-14 Thread ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #7 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-15 01:15 --- With trunk I still see the dump as per the original attachment . I think these 3 lines in the dump cause it to fail . The question though is why the +4 and -4 are not folded out on the ARM port D.1844_3 =

[Bug tree-optimization/39251] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C scan-tree-dump-not forwprop1 = .* \+ -

2010-01-14 Thread mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #8 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-01-15 03:26 --- Ramana -- If I'm reading the log correctly for PR36633 the change that Jason made there didn't actually fix the bug; it was just a cleanup. He commented that something else had changed which made the bug go

[Bug tree-optimization/39251] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C scan-tree-dump-not forwprop1 = .* \+ -

2009-05-13 Thread ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #3 from ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-13 10:10 --- Appears on trunk as of r147467. -- ramana at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug tree-optimization/39251] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C scan-tree-dump-not forwprop1 = .* \+ -

2009-05-13 Thread rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-05-13 13:35 --- trunk or 4.4? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39251

[Bug tree-optimization/39251] FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C scan-tree-dump-not forwprop1 = .* \+ -

2009-05-13 Thread dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
--- Comment #5 from dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2009-05-13 15:20 --- Subject: Re: FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/new1.C scan-tree-dump-not forwprop1 = .* \+ - trunk or 4.4? I see it in trunk revision 147374. Dave -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39251