This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug libstdc++/45841] [4.6 Regression]: r164529 cris-elf libstdc++ 27_io/basic_filebuf/seekoff/char/2-io.cc
- From: "hp at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla-noreply at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 23:52:16 +0000
- Subject: [Bug libstdc++/45841] [4.6 Regression]: r164529 cris-elf libstdc++ 27_io/basic_filebuf/seekoff/char/2-io.cc
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-45841-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45841
--- Comment #43 from Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-10-05 23:52:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #37)
> (In reply to comment #35)
> > Yes and no. By fixing one of the two (known :) simulator bugs and running the
> > test-suite for r164529, the result of that test regressed from PASS to FAIL.
>
> Is it ever a regression (using the proper sense of the word ;v) ) vs my patch?
I think we draw the line at committed revisions, so: no.
I just mentioned them as to clarify what I meant by issue #3 above.
(I haven't committed any of the mentioned simulator fixes yet; I haven't run
the simulator test-suite. At least now I've written two separate regression
tests for those bugs and verified "manually", i.e. outside the test framework
for src/sim, that they individually fail. ;-)