From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10077 invoked by alias); 28 Jun 2005 18:38:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 10046 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Jun 2005 18:38:33 -0000 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 18:38:33 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j5SIbMou015538; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 14:37:22 -0400 Received: from vpn26-9.sfbay.redhat.com (vpn26-9.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.26.9]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j5SIbGu21322; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 14:37:16 -0400 Subject: Re: GCC 4.0.1 Status (2005-06-27) From: Jeffrey A Law Reply-To: law@redhat.com To: Mark Mitchell Cc: gcc mailing list In-Reply-To: <42C171DD.4090408@codesourcery.com> References: <42C0FA31.9000307@codesourcery.com> <1119973190.4621.79.camel@localhost.localdomain> <42C171DD.4090408@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 18:38:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1119983834.4621.102.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2005-06/txt/msg01169.txt.bz2 On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 08:50 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: > Jeffrey A Law wrote: > > On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 00:20 -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote: > > > >>As stated earlier, the only patches I'm considering for 4.0.1 at present > >>are wrong-code cases on primary platforms. There are several open, but > >>the only one I consider a show-stopper is PR 22051, which Jeff Law is > >>working on, and hopes to fix Tuesday. As soon as that's in, I'll build > >>RC3, and then, hopefully, a few days later, put out the final release. > >> > >>I'm sorry this is dragging out, but I think it's worth getting this bug > >>fixed. > > > > I'm working on it right now. My PA box is experiencing cpu faults > > on its second cpu while trying to bootstrap for a set of baseline > > results.... I suspect it'll take until late tomorrow before I can get > > a set of baseline test results, fix the bug, then get a set of new test > > results for comparison purposes. > > Perhaps you could get a patch put together, test it by staring > atassembly output, and then ask for a volunteer to test it? I expect > that Joseph could do a test run on PA-HPUX for you. Someone is going to have to do the PA testing. The PA box isn't going to recover. Oh well. There's actually two closely related bugs in this code. In one case we can eliminate necessary canonicalizations and in others we can introduce unwanted canonicalizations. Whee, fun. Jeff