This is the mail archive of the
gcc-regression@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: 4 GCC regressions, 3 new, with your patch on 2001-06-04T18:55:45Z.
- To: gcc-regression at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Subject: Re: 4 GCC regressions, 3 new, with your patch on 2001-06-04T18:55:45Z.
- From: Phil Edwards <pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 15:58:22 -0400
- Cc: brendan at zen dot org, jh at suse dot cz, lars at nocrew dot org, pme at sources dot redhat dot com, theonetruekenny at yahoo dot com, bkoz at redhat dot com
- References: <200106042058.f54KwID12304@maat.cygnus.com>
On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 08:58:08PM +0000, GCC regression checker wrote:
> With your recent patch, GCC has some regression test failures, which
> used to pass. There are 3 new failures, and 1
> failures that existed before and after that patch; 0 failures
> have been fixed.
>
> The new failures are:
> powerpc-eabisim libstdc++-v3.sum 21_strings/element_access.cc
> powerpc-eabisim libstdc++-v3.sum 26_numerics/complex_value.cc
> native g++.sum g++.pt/crash67.C
>
> The old failures, which were not fixed or introduced by your patch, are:
> native libstdc++-v3.sum 26_numerics/complex_value.cc
>
> For more information, see <http://www.cygnus.com/~geoffk/gcc-regression/>.
> --- /maat/heart/tbox/changelog_pass/gcc/ChangeLog Thu May 10 15:20:14 2001
> +++ gcc/ChangeLog Fri Jun 1 12:03:02 2001
[snip 1005 lines of ChangeLog never mentioning libstdc++]
I'm a little confused on how it determined that our patches were to blame,
if it hasn't passed since May 10th. Our changes aren't even listed in
the changelog diff included here (or on the web version).
Scratch "a little", I'm /very/ confused. I saw no regressions locally.
Can someone confirm the powerpc-eabisim thing? Can't build one of those
here.
Phil