Diego Novillo writes:
> If anyone has free cycles I would appreciate results from other
> ELF-capable targets.
In addition to the issues already reported for Solaris 11/SPARC, here are
the findings for Solaris 10/x86:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-10/msg00180.html
+FAIL: g
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 9:58 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> One failure without LTO which looks like it was introduced in just
> recently (between revision 152285 and 152343):
> FAIL: g++.dg/eh/crossjump1.C (test for excess errors)
>
> I almost want to say
> 2009-09-30 Diego Novillo
> 2009-09-30 D
I ran LTO for spu-elf.
Most of the gcc.dg/lto.exp fail because -shared is not support as
there are no shared library support for SPU yet.
In fact there is an error running the lto.exp testsuite from dejagnu:
+ERROR: tcl error sourcing
/home/apinski/src/lto/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/lto/lto.exp.
+ERR
Diego Novillo wrote:
> In preparation for the final merge into mainline. I need to test
> the branch on various platforms. Richi is currently testing on
> i586, ppc, ppc64, ia64, s390, s390x.
>
> If anyone has free cycles I would appreciate results from other
> ELF-capable targets.
>
> $ svn c
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 7:36 PM, Rainer Orth
wrote:
+FAIL: gcc.dg/lto/20090729 c_lto_20090729_0.o-c_lto_20090729_1.o link
+UNRESOLVED: gcc.dg/lto/20090729 c_lto_20090729_0.o-c_lto_20090729_1.o execute
-w
output is:
ld: warning: symbol `i' has diff
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 7:36 PM, Rainer Orth
wrote:
> Diego Novillo writes:
>
>> In preparation for the final merge into mainline. I need to test
>> the branch on various platforms. Richi is currently testing on
>> i586, ppc, ppc64, ia64, s390, s390x.
>>
>> If anyone has free cycles I would app
Diego Novillo writes:
> If anyone has free cycles I would appreciate results from other
> ELF-capable targets.
The branch on mipsisa64-elf looks good (no regressions with languages
c,c++,objc):
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-09/msg02717.html
baseline:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 13:36, Rainer Orth
wrote:
>> $ svn co svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/lto
>> $ mkdir bld && cd bld
>> $ ../lto/configure --enable-lto && make
>
> Why just a make and no make bootstrap?
It's not necessary, but I wanted to make sure that you force LTO. If
not, configur
Diego Novillo writes:
> In preparation for the final merge into mainline. I need to test
> the branch on various platforms. Richi is currently testing on
> i586, ppc, ppc64, ia64, s390, s390x.
>
> If anyone has free cycles I would appreciate results from other
> ELF-capable targets.
I've run
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 10:41:26AM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> I think the vmx testcases fail on me because I don't have a
> POWER7 machine to test on. But it would be nice if ppc
> people would look at this. Mike?
I or the others in my group should look at the failures. Note, VMX is the
a
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
>> New failures for head-i586
>
>> FAIL: 26_numerics/headers/cmath/fabs_inline.cc (test for excess errors)
>
> This is a failure of a non-LTO test, so a regression.
You are right. It doesn't
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009, Richard Guenther wrote:
> New failures for head-i586
> FAIL: 26_numerics/headers/cmath/fabs_inline.cc (test for excess errors)
This is a failure of a non-LTO test, so a regression.
--
Joseph S. Myers
jos...@codesourcery.com
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Joseph S. Myers
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009, Richard Guenther wrote:
>>
>>> The summary is as follows, extra errors compared to a run
>>> without the merge patch applied:
>>>
>>> i586:
>>>
>>> FAIL: gc
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> In preparation for the final merge into mainline. I need to test
> the branch on various platforms. Richi is currently testing on
> i586, ppc, ppc64, ia64, s390, s390x.
I have successfully bootstrapped on
{i586,x86_64,ppc,ppc64,ia64,s390,s
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Joseph S. Myers
wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009, Richard Guenther wrote:
>
>> The summary is as follows, extra errors compared to a run
>> without the merge patch applied:
>>
>> i586:
>>
>> FAIL: gcc.dg/attr-warn-unused-result.c (internal compiler error)
>> FAIL: gcc.
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009, Richard Guenther wrote:
> The summary is as follows, extra errors compared to a run
> without the merge patch applied:
>
> i586:
>
> FAIL: gcc.dg/attr-warn-unused-result.c (internal compiler error)
> FAIL: gcc.dg/attr-warn-unused-result.c (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: gcc
Hello!
> In preparation for the final merge into mainline. I need to test
> the branch on various platforms. Richi is currently testing on
> i586, ppc, ppc64, ia64, s390, s390x.
>
> If anyone has free cycles I would appreciate results from other
> ELF-capable targets.
>
> $ svn co svn://gcc.gnu.
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Richard Guenther
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>>> In preparation for the final merge into mainline. I need to test
>>> the branch on various platforms. Richi is cu
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Richard Guenther
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
>> In preparation for the final merge into mainline. I need to test
>> the branch on various platforms. Richi is currently testing on
>> i586, ppc, ppc64, ia64, s390, s390x.
>
> I h
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> In preparation for the final merge into mainline. I need to test
> the branch on various platforms. Richi is currently testing on
> i586, ppc, ppc64, ia64, s390, s390x.
I have bootstrapped and tested i586, x86_64, ppc, ppc64, ia64,
s390 (o
On 09/28/2009 11:30 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:
If not, is the proposed
merge patch against current gcc trunk available somewhere for
testing on darwin?
It's the top of the LTO branch.
r~
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 14:30, Jack Howarth wrote:
> Has this patch been tested on non-elf targets like darwin
> yet to make sure they still build? If not, is the proposed
> merge patch against current gcc trunk available somewhere for
> testing on darwin? It would be nice to get ahead of the
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 11:58:30AM -0400, Diego Novillo wrote:
> In preparation for the final merge into mainline. I need to test
> the branch on various platforms. Richi is currently testing on
> i586, ppc, ppc64, ia64, s390, s390x.
>
> If anyone has free cycles I would appreciate results from
Diego Novillo wrote:
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 12:21, H.J. Lu wrote:
FWTW, libelf in Fedora 11 works fine.
Yes, that's what prompted the new check and requirement for libelf 0.8.12.
Unfortunately, libelf in Debian testing as of last Saturday, 19 UTC, is
libelf 0.8.10 - so no contributions
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 12:21, H.J. Lu wrote:
> I think you should check the required libelf features in configure script:
It's checked. See configure.ac.
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41336
Thanks. I will mark it fixed.
> FWTW, libelf in Fedora 11 works fine.
Yes, that's
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> In preparation for the final merge into mainline. I need to test
> the branch on various platforms. Richi is currently testing on
> i586, ppc, ppc64, ia64, s390, s390x.
>
> If anyone has free cycles I would appreciate results from other
> E
26 matches
Mail list logo
