From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31030 invoked by alias); 8 Apr 2004 20:48:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 31010 invoked by alias); 8 Apr 2004 20:48:32 -0000 Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 20:48:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20040408204832.31007.qmail@sources.redhat.com> From: "dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20040403004616.14829.danglin@gcc.gnu.org> References: <20040403004616.14829.danglin@gcc.gnu.org> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug bootstrap/14829] [3.5 Regression] Bootstrap comparison failure on hppa64-hp-hpux11.11 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-04/txt/msg00772.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2004-04-08 20:48 ------- Subject: Re: [3.5 Regression] Bootstrap comparison failu re on hppa64-hp-hpux11.11 > ------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-04-08 > 20:31 ------- > I am wondering if something is miscompiling part of the new code as Zack's > code bootstrap just fine on > almost every other target that I know of. Could you maybe attach the > differences of gcc.c's asm from > the second and thrid stages? I've attached the diff for timevar.c which is quite small. Problem seems to be with output for .debug_loc. I'll do gcc.c as well. Dave ------- Additional Comments From dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2004-04-08 20:48 ------- Created an attachment (id=6062) --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=6062&action=view) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14829