From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-116300-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 8211 invoked by alias); 30 Apr 2004 15:29:18 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 8203 invoked from network); 30 Apr 2004 15:29:18 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO igw2.watson.ibm.com) (129.34.20.6)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 30 Apr 2004 15:29:18 -0000
Received: from sp1n293en1.watson.ibm.com (sp1n293en1.watson.ibm.com [129.34.20.41])
	by igw2.watson.ibm.com (8.11.7-20030924/8.11.4) with ESMTP id i3UFSlU56410;
	Fri, 30 Apr 2004 11:28:48 -0400
Received: from makai.watson.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sp1n293en1.watson.ibm.com (8.11.7-20030924/8.11.7/8.11.7-01-14-2004) with ESMTP id i3UFSlB49108;
	Fri, 30 Apr 2004 11:28:47 -0400
Received: from watson.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by makai.watson.ibm.com (AIX5.1/8.11.6p2/8.11.0/03-06-2002) with ESMTP id i3UFSjT28292;
	Fri, 30 Apr 2004 11:28:45 -0400
Message-Id: <200404301528.i3UFSjT28292@makai.watson.ibm.com>
To: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu>
cc: jh@suse.cz, dave@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH]: Add some more builtins opts for sqrt/cbrt 
In-Reply-To: Message from "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu> 
   of "Fri, 30 Apr 2004 11:21:18 EDT." <200404301521.i3UFLI49022239@caip.rutgers.edu> 
References: <20040408211945.GE3299@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <200404301454.i3UEsST35356@makai.watson.ibm.com>  <200404301521.i3UFLI49022239@caip.rutgers.edu> 
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:21:00 -0000
From: David Edelsohn <dje@watson.ibm.com>
X-SW-Source: 2004-04/txt/msg01996.txt.bz2

>>>>> Kaveh R Ghazi writes:

Kaveh> Yes a patch went in around three weeks ago, are you still seeing a
Kaveh> problem?  Didn't you confirm the patch fixed the AIX5 failures? :-)

Kaveh> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-04/msg00596.html
Kaveh> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-04/msg00601.html

	I guess I expected the builtin problems on the Tree-SSA branch to
improve as well after that patch was merged into the branch.  I still see
numerous failures there.

David