Bug 40543 - [4.5 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/pch/pch.C
Summary: [4.5 Regression] FAIL: g++.dg/pch/pch.C
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: gcc
Classification: Unclassified
Component: testsuite (show other bugs)
Version: 4.5.0
: P1 normal
Target Milestone: 4.5.0
Assignee: Not yet assigned to anyone
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2009-06-24 13:19 UTC by Dominique d'Humieres
Modified: 2009-12-03 07:20 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Host: i686-apple-darwin9
Target: i686-apple-darwin9
Build: i686-apple-darwin9
Known to work:
Known to fail:
Last reconfirmed: 2009-07-15 07:27:27

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Dominique d'Humieres 2009-06-24 13:19:57 UTC 
Between revisions 148536 and 148750 the following failures appeared:

FAIL: g++.dg/pch/pch.C -g -I. (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/pch/pch.C -g assembly comparison
FAIL: g++.dg/pch/pch.C -O2 -g -I. (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/pch/pch.C -O2 -g assembly comparison
FAIL: g++.dg/pch/pch.C -O2 -I. (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/pch/pch.C -O2 assembly comparison

The "excess errors" is:

FAIL: g++.dg/pch/pch.C -g -I. (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
/opt/gcc/gcc-4.5-work/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/pch/pch.C:4:1: error: 'int' does not name a type
Comment 1 Dominique d'Humieres 2009-06-24 13:21:56 UTC 
I have forgotten to say that the failures do not appear with -m64, see http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-06/msg01990.html .
Comment 2 Dominique d'Humieres 2009-06-24 13:25:38 UTC 
Also forgot to say it occurs on i686-apple-darwin9 but not on powerpc-apple-darwin9.
Comment 3 Mark Mitchell 2009-08-24 01:04:13 UTC 
This may very well indicate that PCH is totally busted in 4.5; we need to figure that out.
Comment 4 Andrew Pinski 2009-12-02 23:46:19 UTC 
This works for me on i386-darwin8 so maybe it is a darwin9 specific issue.  Do they fail for you anymore?
Comment 5 Dominique d'Humieres 2009-12-03 07:20:08 UTC 
> Do they fail for you anymore?

No since revision 151159 actually (the last revision I have with the failures is 151000): another silent fix!
Closing.