------- Comment #4 from hp at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-18 14:05 -------
(In reply to comment #1)
> Something you should also immediately check is whether those tests actually
> were run before the changes and not skipped,
You're right, all of
20_util/ratio/comparisons/comp2.cc
20_util/ratio/operations/ops2.cc
20_util/ratio/operations/ops3.cc
were UNSUPPORTED as of 139006. The reason they show up as regressions is that
they have actually passed at least once since 2008-05-30 14:24:17 (r136209, the
last regression-free revision for cris-elf, not counting xfails). Ignoring
PASS -> UNSUPPORTED or PASS -> deleted while not in a regression-free state is
a feature of the regression tester. Sorry for the confusion, I should have
double-checked.
Yes, likely the GLIBCXX_CHECK_C99_TR1 macro should be tightened.
Please ignore 27_io/basic_ostream/inserters_other/char/error_code.cc mentioned
in this PR. It will get a separate PR; it showed up at an earlier revision;
not the same cause or behavior.
I'm not sure, do you still need more information?
--
hp at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|[4.4 Regression]: |New failures:
|20_util/ratio/comparisons/co|20_util/ratio/comparisons/co
|mp2.cc et al |mp2.cc et al
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37147
