On 3/23/20 5:36 AM, Kito Cheng wrote:
Hi Nathan:
Tested variadic-sizeof4.C on x86, x86_64 with native compiler
Tested variadic-sizeof4.C on aarch64, arm-eabi, riscv32, riscv64,
mips, mips64 and nds32 with cross compiler.
And tested g++/dg.exp on arm-eabi with this patch, no new fail
Hi Nathan:
Tested variadic-sizeof4.C on x86, x86_64 with native compiler
Tested variadic-sizeof4.C on aarch64, arm-eabi, riscv32, riscv64,
mips, mips64 and nds32 with cross compiler.
And tested g++/dg.exp on arm-eabi with this patch, no new fail introduced.
On Mon, Mar 23, 2020 at 2:27 AM Jim
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 8:41 AM Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> If it could be tested on arm &| riscv, that'd be additional verification.
I did riscv testing, both cross and native, and didn't see any new
problems with the patch.
Jim
Thanks to Jim for figuring out how to reproduce the problem, I was able
to apply pr94044-jig.diff to poorly hash the specialization table. (That
places all the specializations of a particular template in the same
bucket, forcing us to compare the arguments.)
The testcase creates sizeof_exprs
