This is the mail archive of the
gcc-regression@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: 6 GCC regressions, 0 new, with your patch on 2001-09-27T21:34:17Z.
- To: gcc-regression at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Subject: Re: 6 GCC regressions, 0 new, with your patch on 2001-09-27T21:34:17Z.
- From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz at is dot elta dot co dot il>
- Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 10:07:04 +0200
- CC: geoffk at redhat dot com
- References: <200109272348.f8RNmDr24024@maat.cygnus.com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at is dot elta dot co dot il>
> From: "GCC regression checker" <regress@maat.cygnus.com>
> Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 23:48:13 +0000
>
> With your recent patch, GCC has some regression test failures, which
> used to pass. There are 0 new failures, and 6
> failures that existed before and after that patch; 0 failures
> have been fixed.
>
> The old failures, which were not fixed or introduced by your patch, are:
> powerpc-eabisim g++.sum g++.brendan/crash20.C
> powerpc-eabisim g++.sum g++.law/code-gen5.C
> powerpc-eabisim g++.sum g++.law/ctors6.C
> powerpc-eabisim g++.sum g++.law/operators4.C
> powerpc-eabisim g++.sum g++.other/headers1.C
> powerpc-eabisim g++.sum g++.robertl/eb3.C
Unless someone can explain how a change in the docs could cause a
testsuite regression, I'll consider this as a case of a script that
wasn't told to skip the docs changes.