On Sat, 22 May 2010, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > I'll be submitting result for that around noon your time tomorrow- > Right now I am testing vanilla GCC and patched FreeBSD libelf, my > tester is just rather slow.
Like Kai's patch to FreeBSD's libelf http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-05/msg02150.html your improves results from http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-05/msg02081.html to http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-05/msg02178.html . === g++ Summary === vanilla patched Richard's libelf GCC patch # of expected passes 22876 23118 23118 # of unexpected failures 425 142 142 # of expected failures 151 151 151 # of unresolved testcases 124 66 66 # of unsupported tests 150 150 150 === gcc Summary === # of expected passes 64021 67099 67099 # of unexpected failures 3806 1667 1667 # of unexpected successes 1 1 1 # of expected failures 171 171 171 # of unresolved testcases 2580 1292 1292 # of unsupported tests 1284 1284 1284 === gfortran Summary === (one test added for the last run) # of expected passes 34094 34122 34123 # of unexpected failures 48 27 27 # of expected failures 22 22 22 # of unresolved testcases 37 16 16 # of unsupported tests 266 266 266 In fact (not surprisingly, looking at the code) both patches have the same effect and both the one to FreeBSD libelf and GCC should be applied. What's missing then are the -fwhopr failures, which appear to be the same in both cases: % cat x.c int main() { } % gccvs -flto x.c % gccvs -fwhopr x.c lto1: fatal error: elf_update() failed: Layout constraint violation compilation terminated. lto-wrapper: gccvs returned 1 exit status collect2: lto-wrapper returned 1 exit status Gerald
