From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6661 invoked by alias); 8 Feb 2012 18:11:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 6648 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Feb 2012 18:11:05 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 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; Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:10:53 +0000 From: "ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/51921] [4.6/4.7 regression] EH unwinding support is broken Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2012 18:11:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: critical X-Bugzilla-Who: ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.6.3 X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: 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 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: 2012-02/txt/msg00883.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51921 --- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2012-02-08 18:10:31 UTC --- > --- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2012-02-08 10:44:51 UTC --- > Please fill out known-to-work and known-to-fail fields. Was it "working" Done. > in any 4.6.x release? Especially was it "working" in 4.6.0? If so regressing > on the branch is very bad. It was working on the 4.6 branch from 4.6.0 to 4.6.2. > Did the revert fix any regression that was reported as a bug and has gotten > a testcase? If not, then the proper way to address this new regression is > to revert the revert especially as it appearantly happened during stage4(?) You probably won't need a separate testcase since the failure of the sparc/sol2-unwind.h code manifests itself as lots testsuite failures in ACATS, gnat.dg, and libjava. The only report I know of is Eric's mail about the failure on s10_72, an ancient Solaris 10 bi-weekly beta build, something almost nobody outside Sun/Oracle will be able to test/verify since the corresponding ISO images are no longer available. Rainer