From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24640 invoked by alias); 7 Feb 2012 17:55:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 24621 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Feb 2012 17:55:05 -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; Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:54:46 +0000 From: "ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/51921] [4.6/4.7 regression] EH unwinding support is broken Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:55:00 -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: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu.org 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/msg00749.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51921 --- Comment #6 from Eric Botcazou 2012-02-07 17:54:18 UTC --- > You know perfectly well that such a proof is practically impossible: > that would mean updating a machine through every single Solaris 8/9/10 > kernel/libc/libthread patch ever released. The other way round, I'd > claim that you cannot prove that the old code works for every since such > combination either. I cannot indeed, but we now have a case where the old code used to work and the new code fails. Granted, this isn't an official release, but it's annoying and casts a legitimate doubt on the robustness of the new code. > You claimed that before, and that's what I tried at first to make > Solaris 11 work, but failed completely. OK, do you know of a Solaris 11 machine to which I could have access? AdaCore doesn't have one for the time being. > Why didn't you object then when it was submitted *and accepted*, has > been in for almost a year, been shipped with a release, and revert it > shortly before the next release? I already managed to block a backport to the 4.5 branch. :-) As for the shortly, I wrote a first message on 11/28, got no answers, then applied the change on 01/09, that is to say about 3 months before the planned shipping date.