From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8163 invoked by alias); 12 Feb 2005 21:48:42 -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 8141 invoked by uid 48); 12 Feb 2005 21:48:40 -0000 Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 02:24:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050212214840.8140.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "christian dot joensson at gmail dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20050106195542.19300.christian.joensson@gmail.com> References: <20050106195542.19300.christian.joensson@gmail.com> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/19300] [4.0 Regression] PCH failures on sparc-linux X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-02/txt/msg01256.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From christian dot joensson at gmail dot com 2005-02-12 21:48 ------- This does indeed look promising, compare the test results for sparc-linux at LAST_UPDATED: Fri Feb 11 13:36:22 UTC 2005, without the patch http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=8174&action=view, at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-02/msg00433.html, and with the patch at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-02/msg00458.html (no PCH failures). I'd say this is a good patch to apply. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19300