This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: c++ failures
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- To: Nathan Sidwell <nathan at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: John David Anglin <dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 28 Feb 2003 12:58:48 +0100
- Subject: Re: c++ failures
- Organization: Integrable Solutions
- References: <200302280440.h1S4eEVf002226@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca><m3fzq820os.fsf@uniton.integrable-solutions.net><3E5F34CE.8010003@codesourcery.com>
Nathan Sidwell <nathan at codesourcery dot com> writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
|
| > Within that window, there is also this patch of Mark's
| > 2003-02-25 Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
| > And given the nature of the errors on mainline:
| yes, that was my initial suspicion. but with cvs update -D'20030226 00:00'
| Mark's patch hadn't got into the changelog. Oh, yes this is HEAD btw. I'll
| have a *really careful* poke today.
|
| I apologize if I have erroneously finger pointed.
No need to apologize!
I bootstrapped and tested mainline as of -D'20030225 14:00' (which
does not include my patch) and now the failures are reduced to:
FAIL: g++.dg/warn/Wunused-2.C (test for warnings, line 5)
FAIL: g++.dg/warn/implicit-typename1.C (test for warnings, line 16)
FAIL: pch/system-1.C -g assembly comparison
FAIL: pch/system-1.C -O2 -g assembly comparison
FAIL: g++.eh/spec6.C instantiated from here (test for errors, line 28)
FAIL: g++.eh/spec6.C (test for excess errors)
I'm still investigating why things are going the way they go (the
patch is simple and straightforward). If I can't determine the true
reason by tonight then I'll backup my patch from mainline.
Thanks for your patience,
-- Gaby