From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28477 invoked by alias); 5 Apr 2002 06:56:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 28463 invoked by uid 71); 5 Apr 2002 06:56:02 -0000 Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 22:56:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20020405065602.28462.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: "Joseph S. Myers" Subject: Re: c/2454: Test Program A0376972.c fails with gcc-20010320, works with gcc-2.95.3 Reply-To: "Joseph S. Myers" X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00368.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR c/2454; it has been noted by GNATS. From: "Joseph S. Myers" To: Richard Henderson Cc: , , , , Subject: Re: c/2454: Test Program A0376972.c fails with gcc-20010320, works with gcc-2.95.3 Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 07:55:27 +0100 (BST) On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Richard Henderson wrote: > On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 02:25:25AM +0100, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > > The testcase is 20011223-1.c from the date it was committed, not > > 20010606-1.c. > > Ah. Well, I don't see that failing either. The most recent testresults showing it failing seem to be http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2002-04/msg00009.html - I don't know if this means it is now fixed, someone should have noticed that their patch fixed it if so (if doing proper before-and-after comparisons to detect regressions), unless it only failed on certain platforms. -- Joseph S. Myers jsm28@cam.ac.uk