From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id F0F443858D20; Tue,  8 Aug 2023 22:02:57 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org F0F443858D20
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1691532177;
	bh=IlU+olqXwrTnzCUDoH+x5eB3cqqGXKpGPD94UOBJORQ=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=udU+L8tAtlAbHYmjoIi57FZl7lYuUaGBXDLAeTYTiVHPg/B72gk4IANkirb0Y+faH
	 exCxUd8h3jlK2kJS+6FU9ZjwyCLWtGxfrXvj52gbsv1uF3htL00o/maWgV6bdED2ss
	 s2L3mibg+FcUbEbbpkJ4WcZFgd8LokjpHXWa3N3Y=
From: "egallager at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/55656] objc/obj-c++ failures present under darwin11
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2023 22:02:57 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: target
X-Bugzilla-Version: 4.8.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: testsuite-fail
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-55656-4-vUMFxDgnL1@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-55656-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-55656-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D55656

--- Comment #10 from Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #9)
> (In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #8)
> > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #7)
> > > fixed on master
> > > e.g.
> > > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2021-March/669584.html
> >=20
> > So... are we keeping this open for backports, then?=20
>=20
> yes, most of the fixes are code-gen ones - so I think we need them on at
> least one branch that can be built with c++98.
>=20
> > If so, to which branches?
>=20
> 10.x .. not sure if it's necessary to go back further (let's see there mi=
ght
> be a subset of the changes that are worth doing).

10.x is closed now...=