2013/8/21 Paolo Carlini :
> On 08/21/2013 05:00 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
>>
>> ... I went through the recent gcc-testresults posted by HJ, and the only
>> possible "culprit" seems this commit:
>>
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2013-08/msg00492.html
>>
>> Teresa, can you have a look?
>
> I
On 08/21/2013 05:00 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
... I went through the recent gcc-testresults posted by HJ, and the
only possible "culprit" seems this commit:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2013-08/msg00492.html
Teresa, can you have a look?
I think it's just matter of removing the offending li
.. I went through the recent gcc-testresults posted by HJ, and the only
possible "culprit" seems this commit:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-cvs/2013-08/msg00492.html
Teresa, can you have a look?
Thanks,
Paolo.
On 08/21/2013 04:49 PM, Chung-Ju Wu wrote:
Looking into profopt.exp, 'dg-do' is not an expected dg- command. Is
there something wrong with your environment that some other testcases
with 'dg-do' inside are accidentally included in your tree-prof.exp
testing? :p
Maybe I'm simply not getting the
2013/8/21 Paolo Carlini :
> Hi,
>
> and sorry for nitpicking, but lately when we run
> g++.dg/tree-prof/tree-prof.exp we are all seeing a:
>
> WARNING: profopt.exp does not support dg-do
>
> (lots of examples in gcc-testresults). Any idea what's going wrong?
>
Hi,
and sorry for nitpicking, but lately when we run
g++.dg/tree-prof/tree-prof.exp we are all seeing a:
WARNING: profopt.exp does not support dg-do
(lots of examples in gcc-testresults). Any idea what's going wrong?
Thanks,
Paolo.
