[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jack Howarth) writes:
>Is it the expected behavior for dejagnu to always report warnings
> as errors in the "test for excess errors" check? Is this a design
> decision or just how dejagnu currently works? I ask because the
> current output of "tes
Janis,
THANKS! Using either...
make -k check RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix'{-m32,}'"
or
make -k check RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix'{-m32,-m64}'"
..works from the toplevel directory (at least for x86_64
on Fedora Core 5...I'll try darwin when I get home to my G5).
Jac
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 12:02:25PM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
> Mike,
>I just created PR28837 with the patch to prune.exp that
> prunes the ld64 warnings. I have only tested this with the
> core gcc at the moment because I can't get...
>
> make -k check RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board "unix{,-m64
Mike,
I just created PR28837 with the patch to prune.exp that
prunes the ld64 warnings. I have only tested this with the
core gcc at the moment because I can't get...
make -k check RUNTESTFLAGS='--target_board "unix{,-m64}"'
...to work from the toplevel of the darwin_obj directory...
http://g
On Aug 23, 2006, at 4:43 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
--- gcc-4.2-20060822/gcc/testsuite/lib/prune.exp.org2006-08-23
18:33:56.0 -0400
+++ gcc-4.2-20060822/gcc/testsuite/lib/prune.exp2006-08-23
18:41:28.0 -0400
@@ -43,6 +43,7 @@
regsub -all "(^|\n)\[^\n\]*file path
Janis,
Thanks for the pointers. Adding the following patch
--- gcc-4.2-20060822/gcc/testsuite/lib/prune.exp.org2006-08-23
18:33:56.0 -0400
+++ gcc-4.2-20060822/gcc/testsuite/lib/prune.exp2006-08-23
18:41:28.0 -0400
@@ -43,6 +43,7 @@
regsub -all "(^|\n)\[^\
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 12:21:08PM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
> Dave,
> I noticed this in the gcc/libmudflap/ChangeLog...
>
> * testsuite/lib/libmudflap.exp (libmudflap-init): Add extra libraries.
> (prune_gcc_output): Add glibc static linking warnings.
>
> which makes me thin
Dave,
I noticed this in the gcc/libmudflap/ChangeLog...
* testsuite/lib/libmudflap.exp (libmudflap-init): Add extra libraries.
(prune_gcc_output): Add glibc static linking warnings.
which makes me think I can just add a line like...
regsub -all {(^|\n)[^\n]*can't find atom fo
On 23 August 2006 14:23, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 09:21:45AM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
>> Daniel,
>>I assume the prune routine in the test harness is in dejagnu and
>> not in any gcc provided files that dejagnu uses?
>
> I don't know; you're welcome to look for it.
Daniel,
Thanks. I'll take a stab at finding the harness routine tonight.
Currently on Darwin, we have 38 errors at '-m64 -O3 -g' which are
likely all due to the linker warnings issued when common blocks are
involved in the fortran testsuite...
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2006-08/msg00214.htm
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 09:21:45AM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
> Daniel,
>I assume the prune routine in the test harness is in dejagnu and
> not in any gcc provided files that dejagnu uses?
I don't know; you're welcome to look for it. It's probably named
prune_warnings or something like that.
Daniel,
I assume the prune routine in the test harness is in dejagnu and
not in any gcc provided files that dejagnu uses? The actual warnings
that we are seeing with ld64 on Darwin are described in...
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2006-08/msg00250.html
These warnings (which are of unknown orig
On 23 August 2006 14:13, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 02:04:23PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> There is a prune routine in the test harness for warnings we do not
> care about.
Which reminds me, one slight omission from my earlier post:
> Is this a design decision or just ho
On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 02:04:23PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> > I ask because the
> > current output of "test for excess errors" when a FAIL occurs can
> > be inaccurate. With -m64 on Darwin we currently get a significant number
> > of false positives in the fortra
On 23 August 2006 13:58, Jack Howarth wrote:
>Is it the expected behavior for dejagnu to always report warnings
> as errors in the "test for excess errors" check?
To be precise, what it checks for is excess messages output to stderr. It
doesn't discriminate wh
Is it the expected behavior for dejagnu to always report warnings
as errors in the "test for excess errors" check? Is this a design
decision or just how dejagnu currently works? I ask because the
current output of "test for excess errors" when a FAIL occurs can
be inac
> Could you tell me what it means for 'test for excess errors'? I run
> make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS='dg.exp' on my machine, and got many
> failed tests for these errors on my porting gcc.
The dg.exp tests can instruct DejaGnu to look for specific
warnings/errors in
>
> Hi,
> Could you tell me what it means for 'test for excess errors'?
> I run make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS='dg.exp' on my machine, and got
> many failed tests for these errors on my porting gcc.
That usually means there are some internal compiler errors wh
Hi,
Could you tell me what it means for 'test for excess errors'?
I run make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS='dg.exp' on my machine, and got
many failed tests for these errors on my porting gcc.
Do I need to setup something in order to run these testsuites for my port?
Besides Deja
> Executing on host: /usr/local/src/trunk/objdir/gcc/xgcc
> -B/usr/local/src/trunk/objdir/gcc/
> /usr/local/src/trunk/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/sparc-frame-1.c -O -g
> -fno-show-column -S -m64 -o sparc-frame-1.s(timeout = 1200)
> /usr/local/src/trunk/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/sparc-frame-1.c:
port,
with preprocessed source if appropriate.
See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions.
FAIL: gcc.dg/sparc-frame-1.c (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
/usr/local/src/trunk/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/sparc-frame-1.c:12:
internal compiler error: in dwarf2out_frame_debug_expr, at
dwa
21 matches
Mail list logo
