From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 766 invoked by alias); 12 Oct 2010 22:06:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 757 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Oct 2010 22:06:03 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 22:05:59 +0000 From: "rth at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug middle-end/45962] [4.6 Regression]: many c/c++ failures on cris-elf, in r165236:165242 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: rth at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: REOPENED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: rth at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 22:06:00 -0000 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: 2010-10/txt/msg01034.txt.bz2 Message-ID: <20101012220600.XOeWikbdLI5AL8ey-SSXkWezub6qCUvdTytG18UqIX0@z> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45962 --- Comment #12 from Richard Henderson 2010-10-12 22:05:48 UTC --- (In reply to comment #11) > > ... these tests fail with r165239 too, if you run them by hand. If you > > just compare gcc.sum files of course they'll appear as new failures. > > Incorrect. I don't see what makes you say that. You don't agree they're new tests, or you don't agree that they will fail when run by hand on the older compiler? > > STACK_BOUNDARY should be BITS_PER_UNIT always. > > ...it is; constant 8, for the purpose of this PR, as none of the options are > active. Fine. But just so you know that you have a couple of options that don't do what they say in the documentation, you can clean that up separately.