--- Comment #12 from charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-15 10:02
---
Fixed on trunk.
--
charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Statu
--- Comment #11 from charlet at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-15 09:31
---
Subject: Bug 26096
Author: charlet
Date: Wed Feb 15 09:31:40 2006
New Revision: 111030
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=111030
Log:
2006-02-13 Richard Kenner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Comment #10 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-08 22:36
---
(In reply to comment #9)
> The first 3 are so well-understood as to be fixed on my machine. :-) We are
> working on the 4th.
Excellent!
> > Will you be committing the patch, or is this not the proper fix?
>
>
--- Comment #9 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-08 22:05
---
> In fact, I now did a re-test and only see the four well-understood failures:
> FAIL: c32001e
> FAIL: c64105b
> FAIL: c95086b
> FAIL: ce3810b
The first 3 are so well-understood as to be fixed on my machi
--- Comment #8 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-08 21:44
---
The spurious failures are always in different test cases for me as well ...
In fact, I now did a re-test and only see the four well-understood failures:
FAIL: c32001e
FAIL: c64105b
FAIL: c95086b
FAIL: ce38
--- Comment #7 from laurent at guerby dot net 2006-02-04 20:34 ---
I dont't remember having seen this one (ce3107b) fail. I see some random test
failing with run not finding the exe after gnatmake exits successfully, I've
always assumed this was a timing problem within the Linux kernel.
--- Comment #6 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-04 20:27
---
> It looks like ce3107b is one of those spurious failures I'm getting from
> time to time -- I've never quite understood what's going on here, but it
> looks like a test suite issue:
Indeed, I run into that from
--- Comment #5 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-04 20:16
---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Thanks. ce3107b is new to me but all the others are fully understood.
It looks like ce3107b is one of those spurious failures I'm getting from
time to time -- I've never quite understo
--- Comment #4 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-04 19:42
---
> Yes, this fixes the problem. Bootstrap and regression test passes
> on s390x-ibm-linux (and s390-ibm-linux) with this fix.
Great. I've successfully tested it on x86_64-suse-linux.
> The following test case f
--- Comment #3 from uweigand at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-02-04 19:11
---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Could you try the following fix?
Yes, this fixes the problem. Bootstrap and regression test passes
on s390x-ibm-linux (and s390-ibm-linux) with this fix.
The following test case failur
10 matches
Mail list logo
