On 29 June 2012 23:07, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> linaro-toolchain-boun...@lists.linaro.org wrote on 29.06.2012 12:19:52:
>
>> For Uli's merge request, there is only one new UNSUPPORTED:
>>
>> -PASS: gcc.dg/simulate-thread/atomic-other-int.c -O0 -g thread simulation
> test
>> +UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/sim
linaro-toolchain-boun...@lists.linaro.org wrote on 29.06.2012 12:19:52:
> For Uli's merge request, there is only one new UNSUPPORTED:
>
> -PASS: gcc.dg/simulate-thread/atomic-other-int.c -O0 -g thread simulation
test
> +UNSUPPORTED: gcc.dg/simulate-thread/atomic-other-int.c -O0 -g thread
> simulat
On 29 June 2012 18:05, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
> On 29 June 2012 11:00, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
>> On 29 June 2012 17:12, Ramana Radhakrishnan
>> wrote:
>>> On 29 June 2012 07:52, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
Another two cases fail in precise test:
-PASS: c-c++-common/simulate-thread/
On 29 June 2012 11:00, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
> On 29 June 2012 17:12, Ramana Radhakrishnan
> wrote:
>> On 29 June 2012 07:52, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
>>> Another two cases fail in precise test:
>>>
>>> -PASS: c-c++-common/simulate-thread/bitfields-3.c -O0 -g thread simulation
>>> test
>>> +UNSUPP
On 29 June 2012 17:12, Ramana Radhakrishnan
wrote:
> On 29 June 2012 07:52, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
>> Another two cases fail in precise test:
>>
>> -PASS: c-c++-common/simulate-thread/bitfields-3.c -O0 -g thread simulation
>> test
>> +UNSUPPORTED: c-c++-common/simulate-thread/bitfields-3.c -O0 -g
On 29 June 2012 07:52, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
> Another two cases fail in precise test:
>
> -PASS: c-c++-common/simulate-thread/bitfields-3.c -O0 -g thread simulation
> test
> +UNSUPPORTED: c-c++-common/simulate-thread/bitfields-3.c -O0 -g thread
> simulation test
> -PASS: gcc.dg/simulate-thread/a
Another two cases fail in precise test:
-PASS: c-c++-common/simulate-thread/bitfields-3.c -O0 -g thread simulation test
+UNSUPPORTED: c-c++-common/simulate-thread/bitfields-3.c -O0 -g thread
simulation test
-PASS: gcc.dg/simulate-thread/atomic-other-short.c -O0 -g thread simulation test
+UNSUPPORT
On 29 June 2012 11:28, Michael Hope wrote:
> On 29 June 2012 14:57, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
>> Michael,
>>
>> Lots of fails disappear in the precise repawned tests. But there is a
>> new one which pass in previous test but fail in the new test.
>>
>> ~uweigand/gcc-linaro/lp-1010826-4.7-p2/+merge/11
On 29 June 2012 14:57, Zhenqiang Chen wrote:
> Michael,
>
> Lots of fails disappear in the precise repawned tests. But there is a
> new one which pass in previous test but fail in the new test.
>
> ~uweigand/gcc-linaro/lp-1010826-4.7-p2/+merge/112036
> armv7l-precise-cbuild339-ursa4-cortexa9hfr1
>
Michael,
Lots of fails disappear in the precise repawned tests. But there is a
new one which pass in previous test but fail in the new test.
~uweigand/gcc-linaro/lp-1010826-4.7-p2/+merge/112036
armv7l-precise-cbuild339-ursa4-cortexa9hfr1
-PASS: gcc.dg/simulate-thread/atomic-other-int.c -O0 -g th
On 28 June 2012 05:55, Michael Hope wrote:
> We've had a few testsuite failures recently which were due to the auto
> builder itself. I've started a log at:
> https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/CBuild/FailureLog
>
> so we can track the incident rate and see if there's a pattern.
>
>
We've had a few testsuite failures recently which were due to the auto
builder itself. I've started a log at:
https://wiki.linaro.org/WorkingGroups/ToolChain/CBuild/FailureLog
so we can track the incident rate and see if there's a pattern.
Zhenqiang, if you see an unexpected failure could you r
12 matches
Mail list logo
