This is the mail archive of the
gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC 8 released but not successful ?
- From: Xi Ruoyao <ryxi at stu dot xidian dot edu dot cn>
- To: Dennis Clarke <dclarke at blastwave dot org>
- Cc: gcc-help <gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 04 May 2018 22:46:23 +0800
- Subject: Re: GCC 8 released but not successful ?
- References: <178d4da5-ce26-75d6-701c-73e165150c2a@blastwave.org> <1525024645.13111.8.camel@stu.xidian.edu.cn> <ffd12d5f-350e-fe1f-6cef-43a39d26163e@blastwave.org>
On 2018-04-29 14:47 -0400, Dennis Clarke wrote:
> I think we still need a human to look over the results and then
> determine to what degree the results are reasonably clean or just
> another nightmare of fails in gfortran and g++ and go etc etc.
>
> Example of a nightmare :
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2018-04/msg01589.html
>
> Here is a release thing of beauty :
> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2018-04/msg01455.html
>
> I know that the testsuite for Perl tends to kick out a few lines at the
> bottom that claim 99.8% passed or similar. The testsuite in gcc just
> dumps out numbers that may leave one to always ask "why would anyone
> trust this thing?"
>
> === g++ Summary ===
>
> # of expected passes 105237
> # of unexpected failures 105
> # of expected failures 395
> # of unsupported tests 4600
>
> So what is that ? Good? Disaster? About 105 unexpected failures
> means C++ can not be trusted on this platform? I am never too sure as
> there here never been a perfect result and there may never be. An
> automated test platform would have to report the above as :
>
> rhel74$ echo "4k 1 105 105237 105 395 4600 +++ / - 100 * pq" | dc
> 99.9100
>
> So pretty darn clean right? However a 0.09% failure in the wrong place
> would be a catastrophic failure for code that needs to run inside a
> Medtronic heart implant or some flight control systems or turbo fan fuel
> pump sensors. Those things are most likely hand coded assembly and
> tested to death. No pun intended.
AFAIK on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, I think we can only ignore some FAILs in
gcc.dg/guality. They use GDB and the result (debugger output) tends to
be wrong with optimization. Other tests should not FAIL.
> Anyways, I was just wondering where GCC 8.1 is and it seems to be RSN.
My result was sent:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2018-05/msg00374.html
I don't have platforms other than x86_64-pc-linux-gnu (though I may buy
a mips64 in 2019).
And you can search for "8.1.0" here:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/
--
Xi Ruoyao <ryxi@stu.xidian.edu.cn>
School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University