Re: 4 GCC regressions, 3 new, with your patch on 2001-06-04T18:55:45Z.

[Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>]

> 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).
This were combination of issues - basically after May10th the build has been
broken by Richard merger, then I've introduced one PPC failure in SUBREG
changes, then I've fixed it, but introduced bootstrap failure, fixed it
so result is that regression tester never cleared his cache. I am sorry :(

The new faulres listed above has been introduced by the "last round", so
I guess everyone who didn't commited yesterday is off round.
I am not, but this don't look like my failure, as I didn't made any c++
changes.

Does someone have idea where they've come from?
Honza
> 
> 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