From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13230 invoked by alias); 7 Oct 2002 16:16:02 -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 13201 invoked by uid 71); 7 Oct 2002 16:16:01 -0000 Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 09:16:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20021007161601.13197.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Roger Sayle Subject: Re: target/8087: sparc-sun-solaris2.7 C testsuite failures in execute/20020720-1.c w/-m64 or on sparcv9/sparc64 Reply-To: Roger Sayle X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00258.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR target/8087; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Roger Sayle To: , , , , , , , , Cc: Subject: Re: target/8087: sparc-sun-solaris2.7 C testsuite failures in execute/20020720-1.c w/-m64 or on sparcv9/sparc64 Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 09:54:51 -0600 (MDT) > Synopsis: sparc-sun-solaris2.7 C testsuite failures in execute/20020720-1.c w/-m64 or on sparcv9/sparc64 > > State-Changed-From-To: analyzed->closed > State-Changed-By: davem > State-Changed-When: Mon Oct 7 00:22:29 2002 > State-Changed-Why: > Bug marked as XFAIL in current sources. > This is still a problem with sparc64. It probably still deserves a Problem Report. It was marked XFAIL to indicate that it isn't an immediate problem, i.e. a concern to GCC users, but the problem itself hasn't gone away. Toon's original complex division example still produces inferior code on sparc64 than it does on 32-bit sparc. Perhaps reducing the priority may have been more appropriate? Just to let you know, I'm still investigating a solution. Roger --