From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11203 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2014 17:15:47 -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 Received: (qmail 11114 invoked by uid 48); 18 Nov 2014 17:15:38 -0000 From: "dominiq at lps dot ens.fr" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug testsuite/63939] New: [5 Regression] Massive asan failures (356) on x86_64-apple-darwin14 Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 17:15:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: new X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: testsuite X-Bugzilla-Version: 5.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED 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: bug_id short_desc product version bug_status bug_severity priority component assigned_to reporter attachments.created Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2014-11/txt/msg01750.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63939 Bug ID: 63939 Summary: [5 Regression] Massive asan failures (356) on x86_64-apple-darwin14 Product: gcc Version: 5.0 Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P3 Component: testsuite Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org Reporter: dominiq at lps dot ens.fr Created attachment 34028 --> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34028&action=edit Patch fixing the failures Massive as an failures appeared on x86_64-apple-darwin14 between r217514 (none with patches) r217602 (356 with the same patches). The attached patch fixes these failures. Note (1) I don't understand what has changed to explain the failures. (2) The patch is a mechanical addition of a '?' after the blocks '(in ...)'. There may be a better fix.