On Dec 8, 2006, at 1:43 AM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
In case anyone does not know yet, the warning is the same as PR 29779.
I don't remember if this was mentioned or not.
Thank you very much for that info. That is indeed the problem with
these test cases, as can be seen if I specify a 64-bit C
On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 10:24 -0800, Steve Kargl wrote:
> >
> > I have reported no other bootstrap/regtests. So, depending on your
> > meaning, perhaps there has never been a "last good bootstrap".
> >
>
> Can you make testsuite/gfortran/gfortran.log available?
> I suspect that this is yet anot
make -k -j 8 check >& check.log ; make mail-report-with-warnings.log
I got results that appear not much different from the powerpc-apple-
darwin8.8.0 (i.e., 32-bit) results:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-12/msg00267.html
i.e., these results don't show a particular fortran proble
After
0. Making Jack's suggested changes to prune.exp (even though they
didn't catch any new linker messages);
1. Configuring and making with
/bin/rm -rf *; env CC=/pkgs/gcc-4.2.0-64/bin/gcc ../configure --
build=powerpc64-apple-darwin8.8.0 --host=powerpc64-apple-darwin8.8.0
--target=po
to see if that eliminates the problems. Also I
assume Bradley remembered to install the build
before running make check. I see lots of libgomp
failures I believe those could be due to that.
Also, Bradley, did you remember to patch the
prune.exp scripts in the testsuite? You will
get a huge numbe
Steve,
That comment isn't quite fair. Currently on MacOS X
10.4.8, we only have 32 failures for both -m32 and -m64
in the fortran testsuite. Three quarters of those are
definitely due to the problem with the long double
system calls not being mapped and the other ones
(due to isfinite breakage)
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 02:41:47AM -0500, Bradley Lucier wrote:
>
> On Dec 6, 2006, at 2:18 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
>
> >
> >>On Dec 6, 2006, at 1:33 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
> >>
> >>>So when was the last good bootstrap?
> >>
> >>I last bootstrapped and regtested this configuration here
> >>
> >>ht
On Dec 6, 2006, at 2:18 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Dec 6, 2006, at 1:33 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
So when was the last good bootstrap?
I last bootstrapped and regtested this configuration here
http://www.math.purdue.edu/~lucier/gcc/test-results/
4_3_0_2006-11-11.gz
The results appear roug
> On Dec 6, 2006, at 1:33 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
>
> >So when was the last good bootstrap?
>
> I last bootstrapped and regtested this configuration here
>
> http://www.math.purdue.edu/~lucier/gcc/test-results/4_3_0_2006-11-11.gz
>
> The results appear roughly similar. (This is a recent archite
On Dec 6, 2006, at 1:33 AM, Steve Kargl wrote:
So when was the last good bootstrap?
I last bootstrapped and regtested this configuration here
http://www.math.purdue.edu/~lucier/gcc/test-results/4_3_0_2006-11-11.gz
The results appear roughly similar. (This is a recent architecture
triple.
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 01:11:17AM -0500, Bradley Lucier wrote:
> I'm getting several thousand gfortran testsuite errors with messages
> like:
>
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/PR19754_2.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-
> all-loops -finline-functions (test for excess errors)
> Excess errors:
> /Use
I'm getting several thousand gfortran testsuite errors with messages
like:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/PR19754_2.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-
all-loops -finline-functions (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
/Users/gcc-test/programs/gcc/mainline/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/
PR19754_2.f90:
12 matches
Mail list logo
