From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 20 15:01:45 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A7A3106566C; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:01:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from das@freebsd.org) Received: from zim.MIT.EDU (ZIM.MIT.EDU [18.95.3.101]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05D1E8FC15; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:01:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from zim.MIT.EDU (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zim.MIT.EDU (8.14.5/8.14.2) with ESMTP id q0KF1i6U035276; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 10:01:44 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from das@freebsd.org) Received: (from das@localhost) by zim.MIT.EDU (8.14.5/8.14.2/Submit) id q0KF1imL035275; Fri, 20 Jan 2012 10:01:44 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from das@freebsd.org) Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 10:01:44 -0500 From: David Schultz To: Dimitry Andric Message-ID: <20120120150144.GB306@zim.MIT.EDU> Mail-Followup-To: Dimitry Andric , Roman Divacky , src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org References: <201201200657.q0K6vMhf028463@svn.freebsd.org> <20120120075551.GA28975@freebsd.org> <4F19748F.3010906@FreeBSD.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4F19748F.3010906@FreeBSD.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, Roman Divacky , src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r230368 - head/tools/regression/usr.bin/cc X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 15:01:45 -0000 On Fri, Jan 20, 2012, Dimitry Andric wrote: > On 2012-01-20 08:55, Roman Divacky wrote: > >http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=11406 says this has been > >fixed, is this just problem with us having older clang in base? > > Obviously, it has only been fixed in llvm trunk. If this is a pressing > problem, we can backport the fix. Otherwise, it will be fixed when we > import a more recent snapshot. It isn't a pressing issue. The test was failing due to an even more basic bug than the one I was trying to test; adding two constants was producing the wrong answer. Therefore, I can't confirm that the test now passes, but they did fix *a* bug. By the way, having dealt with gcc bugs in the past, I found reporting a clang bug to be an unexpectedly pleasant experience.