From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14476 invoked by alias); 15 Jan 2013 22:02:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 14464 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Jan 2013 22:02:40 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 22:02:07 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r0FM1rG2004118 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 15 Jan 2013 17:01:53 -0500 Received: from stumpy.slc.redhat.com (ovpn-113-50.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.50]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r0FM1qXk029243; Tue, 15 Jan 2013 17:01:53 -0500 Message-ID: <50F5D1D0.3040009@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 22:02:00 -0000 From: Jeff Law User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: janisjo@codesourcery.com CC: Janis Johnson , "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" Subject: Re: [testsuite] fix loop index for gcc.dg/webizer.c References: <50F5D0B6.6000708@mentor.com> In-Reply-To: <50F5D0B6.6000708@mentor.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2013-01/txt/msg00811.txt.bz2 On 01/15/2013 02:57 PM, Janis Johnson wrote: > Execution of test gcc.dg/webizer.c fails with a segfault for > powerpc-eabi with the GNU simulator. The test has an array of size 2 > and accesses that array with indices of 1 and 2. This patch fixes the > bounds of the loop index. > > Tested on powerpc-none-eabi; OK for trunk? Based on: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-10/msg01259.html I think the the loop variables are fairly important. I think we're less likely to perturb the test by increasing the size of the array. Jeff