With LAST_UPDATED: "Sat Nov  6 19:25:03 GMT 2004" I get:
FAIL: gcc.dg/visibility-1.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/visibility-1.c scan-hidden hidden[ \t_]*foo
FAIL: gcc.dg/visibility-2.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/visibility-2.c scan-hidden hidden[ \t_]*foo
FAIL: gcc.dg/visibility-3.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/visibility-3.c scan-hidden hidden[ \t_]*xyzzy
FAIL: gcc.dg/visibility-4.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/visibility-4.c scan-hidden hidden[ \t_]*xyzzy
FAIL: gcc.dg/visibility-5.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/visibility-5.c scan-hidden hidden[ \t_]*foo
FAIL: gcc.dg/visibility-6.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/visibility-6.c scan-hidden hidden[ \t_]*xyzzy
FAIL: gcc.dg/visibility-7.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/visibility-7.c scan-hidden hidden[ \t_]*xyzzy
FAIL: gcc.dg/visibility-8.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/visibility-8.c scan-hidden hidden[ \t_]*__GI_fputs_unlocked
FAIL: gcc.dg/visibility-9.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/visibility-9.c scan-hidden hidden[ \t_]*foo
FAIL: gcc.dg/visibility-a.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/visibility-a.c scan-hidden hidden[ \t_]*foo

With the message in the .log being (all the same:
/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/visibility-1.c: In function 'foo':
/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/visibility-1.c:9: warning: visibility attribute not
supported in this configuration; ignored

Looks like a bug in dg-require-visibility.
The test has never worked on this target.

-- 
           Summary: mmix-knuth-mmixware testsuite failure:
                    gcc.dg/visibility-1.c (actually all)
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.0.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: target
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
                CC: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
  GCC host triplet: i686-pc-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: mmix-knuth-mmixware


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18349

Reply via email to