From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27118 invoked by alias); 24 Jul 2015 20:33:26 -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 27109 invoked by uid 89); 24 Jul 2015 20:33:25 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 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 (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 20:33:20 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BDBEAA6; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 20:33:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from freie.home (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t6OKXGDv022973 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 24 Jul 2015 16:33:18 -0400 Received: from livre.home (livre.home [172.31.160.2]) by freie.home (8.14.8/8.14.8) with ESMTP id t6OKX11j021753; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 17:33:01 -0300 From: Alexandre Oliva To: David Edelsohn Cc: "H.J. Lu" , Segher Boessenkool , Richard Biener , Jeff Law , GCC Patches , Christophe Lyon , Eric Botcazou Subject: Re: [PR64164] drop copyrename, integrate into expand References: <20150723203112.GB27818@gate.crashing.org> Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 20:43:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (David Edelsohn's message of "Fri, 24 Jul 2015 15:12:02 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2015-07/txt/msg02118.txt.bz2 On Jul 24, 2015, David Edelsohn wrote: > Did you commit the final, complete version of the patches? Yes, I have double-checked that reverting the patch I posted on the r225979 tree I used for testing reverts it to the base revision, except for unrelated libgfortran configury changes that I used to avoid halting configure in cross builds, to increase the amount of code build during the cross testing. > Did you test the version of the patches that you committed? Yes, I have just double-checked that the version I tested is identical to the change introduced by commit 226113, except for the ChangeLogs and the libgfortran configury change. It could be that some other change between 225979 and 226112, combined with 226113, caused the regression. Or it could be that my i686-pc-linux-gnu "native" testing on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu is somehow faulty. I'll look into it and try to find out what the source of the difference in test results H.J. and I get could be. -- Alexandre Oliva, freedom fighter http://FSFLA.org/~lxoliva/ You must be the change you wish to see in the world. -- Gandhi Be Free! -- http://FSFLA.org/ FSF Latin America board member Free Software Evangelist|Red Hat Brasil GNU Toolchain Engineer