Samuel Thibault, le Mon 09 Feb 2015 18:08:43 +0100, a écrit :
> Samuel Thibault, le Mon 09 Feb 2015 18:03:33 +0100, a écrit :
> > by comparing the first test passes, I can confirm that there are *WAY*
> > fewer failures with this workaround in place.
>
> And the few dozen failures I have seen so far also happen with the i386
> build.
=== gcc Summary for unix ===
# of expected passes 108671
# of unexpected failures 124
# of unexpected successes 17
# of expected failures 276
# of unresolved testcases 1
# of unsupported tests 1496
To be compared with i386:
=== gcc Summary for unix ===
# of expected passes 115039
# of unexpected failures 94
# of unexpected successes 17
# of expected failures 324
# of unsupported tests 1723
The difference is essentially a few limits-fndefn.c failures, some
cleanup-*.c failures and two dozen failures with only largefile.c (which
I guess is about LFS).
So I'd tend to think that it's relatively good and we can reassign the
issue with tcl/expect.
Samuel
