From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3227 invoked by alias); 2 Sep 2008 10:35:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 2696 invoked by uid 48); 2 Sep 2008 10:34:34 -0000 Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 10:35:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20080902103434.2695.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug pch/37307] [4.4 Regression]: g++.dg/pch/system-2.C In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "hp at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2008-09/txt/msg00145.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #3 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-02 10:34 ------- Yep, it's revision 139762 that exposed this FAIL, which of course (appears to) just change behaviour of some optimization levels. Incidentally, that also exposed some of the FAILs in PR37315 (I think I fumble-fingered the failing revision range in that PR): gcc.c-torture/execute/931018-1.c, gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/inf-2.c, gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/mzero6.c. I think it'd be proper to let this PR depend on that one, particularly since it makes sense that "re-using" a cfun->machine could cause this and this PR seeming nasty to track down (PCH and all). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37307