On 7/7/05, Christian Joensson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I guess most was binutils issues... sorry, 4.0.1 seems fine to me on
sparc-linux:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-07/msg00560.html
--
Cheers,
/ChJ
On 7/6/05, Christian Joensson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 7/6/05, Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Christian Joensson wrote:
> >
> > >limiting this e-mail... I could also rebootstrap 4.0.0 if you think
> > >that'd be more useful... let me know what you would like...
> > >
> > Well,
> sure, attached, this is with HJ's binutils-2.16.90.0.3-1 for linux
> tarball test release rpm built for corona.
>
> again, would you rather I backed off to a binutils-2.15.92.0.2-5?
I think it would be better to use Binutils releases when testing GCC releases,
because that's what the users are
Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>The best would be if Christian could post (bzip2ed) readelf -Ws of
>the libstdc++.so that fails the abi_check.
>
>
In fact, the excerpt from libstdc++.log that he sent privately doesn't
show the "check-abi Summary": as far as I know, abi_check can be
segfaulting (as is appa
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 04:33:43PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Eric Botcazou wrote:
>
> >>Yes, I would definitely encourage a little more analysis. I'm rather
> >>puzzled. We have got very nice testsuites on sparc-solaris and on
> >>*-linux, in general, and those failures certainly are not expec
Paolo Carlini writes:
> Eric Botcazou wrote:
>
> >>hmm, I get a few libstdc++ testsuite failuers
> >>
> >>http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-07/msg00304.html
> >>
> >>other than that, looks pretty fine.
> >>
> >>
> >Did you get them with 4.0.0 too? If no, the libstdc++ folks will
Eric Botcazou wrote:
>>Yes, I would definitely encourage a little more analysis. I'm rather
>>puzzled. We have got very nice testsuites on sparc-solaris and on
>>*-linux, in general, and those failures certainly are not expected.
>>
>>
>Is the
>
>FAIL: abi_check
>
>failure expected? Should co
> Yes, I would definitely encourage a little more analysis. I'm rather
> puzzled. We have got very nice testsuites on sparc-solaris and on
> *-linux, in general, and those failures certainly are not expected.
Is the
FAIL: abi_check
failure expected? Should config/abi/sparc-linux-gnu/baseline_sy
Paolo Carlini wrote:
>However, missing additional details, it's very difficult to guess: can
>be almost anything, from a weirdness in the installed localedata...
>
Probably we can exclude at least this first possibility: if I understand
well, everything related to glibc has not changed on the mach
On 7/6/05, Paolo Carlini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eric Botcazou wrote:
>
> >>hmm, I get a few libstdc++ testsuite failuers
> >>
> >>http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-07/msg00304.html
> >>
> >>other than that, looks pretty fine.
> >>
> >>
> >Did you get them with 4.0.0 too? If no,
Eric Botcazou wrote:
>>hmm, I get a few libstdc++ testsuite failuers
>>
>>http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-07/msg00304.html
>>
>>other than that, looks pretty fine.
>>
>>
>Did you get them with 4.0.0 too? If no, the libstdc++ folks will have to say
>whether they are really regr
On 7/6/05, Eric Botcazou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > hmm, I get a few libstdc++ testsuite failuers
> >
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-07/msg00304.html
> >
> > other than that, looks pretty fine.
>
> Did you get them with 4.0.0 too? If no, the libstdc++ folks will have to sa
> hmm, I get a few libstdc++ testsuite failuers
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-07/msg00304.html
>
> other than that, looks pretty fine.
Did you get them with 4.0.0 too? If no, the libstdc++ folks will have to say
whether they are really regressions (the testsuite harness has
hmm, I get a few libstdc++ testsuite failuers
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-07/msg00304.html
other than that, looks pretty fine.
--
Cheers,
/ChJ
14 matches
Mail list logo
