Re: target/8087: sparc-sun-solaris2.7 C testsuite failures in execute/20020720-1.c w/-m64 or on sparcv9/sparc64

["Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu>]

The following reply was made to PR target/8087; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu>
To: roger@eyesopen.com, rth@redhat.com
Cc: davem@redhat.com, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org,
        gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, jakub@redhat.com
Subject: Re: target/8087: sparc-sun-solaris2.7 C testsuite failures in execute/20020720-1.c w/-m64 or on sparcv9/sparc64
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:46:13 -0400 (EDT)

  > From: Roger Sayle <roger@eyesopen.com>
  > 
  > > One is sort of meaningless all on its own.  You have to know what
  > > sort of comparison is going to be used with it.o
  > > Hum, actually that's true with NaN and UNORDERED as well.
  > > I.e. this is all bogus for COMPARE targets.
  > 
  > My apologies to that sparc64 maintainers.  The HP-UX solution is
  > indeed inapplicable for COMPARE targets.
  > 
  > I also now realize my mistake trying to analyze this problem.  I was
  > running "cc1" with "-m64 -O2" whilst debuging in gdb, as these were
  > the same flags I used to run gcc.  The problem is that gcc also
  > passes  "-mcpu=v9" to cc1, and this flag is required to exhibit
  > the problem.  It turns out that its the sparc64's constant pool
  > handling that hides the optimization, rather than the optimization
  > triggering and not being representable in the machine description.
 
 So what does that mean with respect to addressing the testcase?
 Fixable?  XFAIL it?
 
 		--Kaveh
 --
 Kaveh R. Ghazi			ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu