From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14001 invoked by alias); 7 Apr 2017 08:41:13 -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 13869 invoked by uid 89); 7 Apr 2017 08:41:11 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-6.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,GIT_PATCH_2,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: smtp.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE Received: from smtp.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE (HELO smtp.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE) (129.70.160.84) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 07 Apr 2017 08:41:11 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B7259B6; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:41:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (malfoy.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id FgyfOJv0XlIi; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:41:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from manam.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE (p5DCE13B4.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [93.206.19.180]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CF5069B4; Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:41:01 +0200 (CEST) From: Rainer Orth To: Richard Biener Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix PR80334 References: Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2017 08:41:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Richard Biener's message of "Fri, 7 Apr 2017 10:33:13 +0200 (CEST)") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (usg-unix-v) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-04/txt/msg00354.txt.bz2 Hi Richard, >> > Any suggestion how to mitigate that? Possible solution includes >> > adding { target { ! ... } } to dg-do run. >> >> No idea. However, according to gcc-testresults there are other >> failures: s390-ibm-inux-gnu and s390x-ibm-linux-gnu so far. >> >> This might argue against just excluding a random list of failing targets. > > Hmm. Does using __BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT__, thus > > int > main() > { > alignas(__BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT__) B b[3]; > ... > > work for you? it does: the test now PASSes on sparc-sun-solaris2.12 and continues to do so in i386-pc-solaris2.12, both 32 and 64-bit. Thanks. Rainer -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University