On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 2:08 AM, Romain GEISSLER < [email protected]> wrote:
> > Le 16 août 2016 à 05:14, Bruce Dubbs <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > > Running target unix > > FAIL: g++.dg/guality/pr55665.C -O2 line 23 p == 40 > > FAIL: g++.dg/guality/pr55665.C -O3 -g line 23 p == 40 > > XPASS: g++.dg/tls/thread_local-order2.C -std=c++11 execution test > > XPASS: g++.dg/tls/thread_local-order2.C -std=c++14 execution test > > Hi, > > For the 2 XPASS, I guess everyone following LFS has it for a very long > time no ? I have deactivated them a long time ago, because with the LFS > configuration it will always pass (while the gcc developers expect it to > fail). The reason is that it requires some glibc support, that LFS has for > sure. See https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-01/msg02092.html > > For the guality tests, I have already explained in another mail the > situation and the constant very bad shape of these tests in general. But I > thought these tests couldn't be run in the LFS context given that it > requires gdb that is normally not built at this stage ? > > Cheers, > Romain > -- > The two XPASS don't happen for me on a fresh LFS build with GCC-6.1.0. These were my results: renodr [ ~/jhalfs ]$ cat /mnt/lfs/jhalfs/test-logs/083-gcc-6.1.0 | grep FAIL FAIL: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions execution test FAIL: experimental/filesystem/iterators/directory_iterator.cc execution test FAIL: experimental/filesystem/iterators/recursive_directory_iterator.cc execution test FAIL: gcc.dg/atomic/c11-atomic-exec-5.c -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -ftracer -finline-functions execution test FAIL: experimental/filesystem/iterators/directory_iterator.cc execution test FAIL: experimental/filesystem/iterators/recursive_directory_iterator.cc execution test
-- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
