From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 39210 invoked by alias); 12 Oct 2017 17:11:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 39194 invoked by uid 89); 12 Oct 2017 17:11:19 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 12 Oct 2017 17:11:18 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 87E1290C9F for ; Thu, 12 Oct 2017 17:11:17 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 87E1290C9F Authentication-Results: ext-mx05.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx05.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=jakub@redhat.com Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (ovpn-116-223.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.223]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 302EE5D6A3; Thu, 12 Oct 2017 17:11:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id v9CHBE8S012399; Thu, 12 Oct 2017 19:11:15 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id v9CHBE1c012398; Thu, 12 Oct 2017 19:11:14 +0200 Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 17:34:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Vladimir Makarov Cc: gcc-patches Subject: Re: patch to fix PR82353 Message-ID: <20171012171114.GZ14653@tucnak> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <20171011211106.GQ14653@tucnak> <20171012164921.GY14653@tucnak> <0700d384-c580-efd3-e1b5-f7aac40d92c9@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <0700d384-c580-efd3-e1b5-f7aac40d92c9@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.1 (2016-10-04) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-10/txt/msg00773.txt.bz2 On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 01:05:21PM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote: > > > On 10/12/2017 12:49 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > Hi! > > > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 06:41:05PM -0400, Vladimir Makarov wrote: > > > > Tested on x86_64-linux -m32/-m64, and verified with cc1plus before your > > > > change, ok for trunk? > > BTW, I think it is quite fragile to scan for the reload messages, so I've > > cooked up a runtime test that fails before your patch and succeeds with your > > patch. Tested on x86_64-linux with -m32/-m64 (both with your patch reverted > > and without), ok for trunk? > > > > > OK. Thanks. > FYI, I am going to revert LRA part of the patch because it results in a > failure bootstrap with go or ada. I guess the new version of the patch will > be ready tomorrow or on Monday. Yeah, I've just noticed that too (my bootstrap failed in Ada). I'll defer committing the patch after you commit your new fix then. Jakub