From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6923 invoked by alias); 5 May 2017 08:52:12 -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 6903 invoked by uid 89); 5 May 2017 08:52:11 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=weekend X-HELO: sasl.smtp.pobox.com Received: from pb-smtp1.pobox.com (HELO sasl.smtp.pobox.com) (64.147.108.70) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 May 2017 08:52:10 +0000 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6399189E84 for ; Fri, 5 May 2017 04:52:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pb-smtp1.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A14589E83 for ; Fri, 5 May 2017 04:52:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.1.4] (unknown [76.215.41.237]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp1.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C305C89E82 for ; Fri, 5 May 2017 04:52:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/12] [i386] Improve 64-bit Microsoft to System V ABI pro/epilogues To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org References: <49e81c0b-07a4-22df-d7c3-2439177ac7cf@pobox.com> From: Daniel Santos Message-ID: <7df5e17d-1a61-c431-74b4-b4d22e5f6d4b@pobox.com> Date: Fri, 05 May 2017 09:05:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 20757024-3170-11E7-9596-E680B56B9B0B-06139138!pb-smtp1.pobox.com X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-05/txt/msg00368.txt.bz2 On 05/02/2017 05:40 AM, Kai Tietz wrote: > Right, and Wine people will tell, if something doesn't work for them. > So ok for me too. > > Kai Well, I haven't re-run these tests in a few months, but I got 272 failed wine tests with gcc 7.1 and 234 with my patch set rebased onto 7.1. So it looks like I'll be trying to diagnose these failures this weekend. Daniel