This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Results for haifa-enabled egcs-2.91.42 19980621 (gcc2 ss-980502 experimental) testsuite on sparc-sun-solaris2.5.1
- To: egcs at cygnus dot com
- Subject: Re: Results for haifa-enabled egcs-2.91.42 19980621 (gcc2 ss-980502 experimental) testsuite on sparc-sun-solaris2.5.1
- From: Raja R Harinath <harinath at cs dot umn dot edu>
- Date: 23 Jun 1998 22:17:44 -0500
- References: <199806231718.KAA11537@atrus.synopsys.com>
Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.com> writes:
> Horst von Brand and I both tested 19980621 on sparc-sun-solaris2.5.1
> but got different results for the g++ tests.
>
> Horst gets
>
> > Running target unix
> > FAIL: g++.law/code-gen5.C (test for excess errors)
> > FAIL: g++.robertl/eb101.C (test for excess errors)
> > FAIL: g++.robertl/eb129.C (test for excess errors)
> > FAIL: g++.robertl/eb130.C (test for excess errors)
> > FAIL: g++.robertl/eb131.C (test for excess errors)
> > FAIL: g++.robertl/eb56.C (test for excess errors)
> > FAIL: g++.robertl/eb91.C (test for excess errors)
> >
> > === g++ Summary ===
> >
> > # of expected passes 4165
> > # of unexpected failures 7
> > # of expected failures 86
> > # of untested testcases 6
I get something similar.
> I get
>
> FAIL: g++.robertl/eb101.C (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: g++.robertl/eb129.C (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: g++.robertl/eb130.C (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: g++.robertl/eb131.C (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: g++.robertl/eb56.C (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: g++.robertl/eb91.C (test for excess errors)
>
> === g++ Summary ===
>
> # of expected passes 4167
> # of unexpected failures 6
> # of expected failures 85
> # of untested testcases 6
>
> I have one fewer failure. But I don't know why I have two more passes.
>
> Horst, what output do you get when you run g++.law/code-gen5.C ?
I'm not Horst, but I get the following output for g++.law/code-gen5.C:
compiler exited with status 1
output is:
In file included from ...egcs/build/sol2/gcc/testsuite/../include/math.h:5,
from ...egcs/build/sol2/gcc/testsuite/../include/math.h:5,
from ...egcs/gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.law/code-gen5.C:13:
/usr/include/math.h:19: `__P' redefined
/usr/local/include/sys/cdefs.h:58: this is the location of the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
previous definition
FAIL: g++.law/code-gen5.C (test for excess errors)
[snip]
XFAIL: g++.law/code-gen5.C Execution test
And, here's what libio/ChangeLog has to say:
* libio.h: If _G_HAVE_SYS_CDEFS, get __P from <sys/cdefs.h>.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Here's the defn. of __P from sys/cdefs.h:
#define __P(protos) protos /* full-blown ANSI C */
Here's the defn of __P in math.h:
#ifdef __STDC__
#define __P(p) p
#else
#define __P(p) ()
#endif
And libio.h:
#ifndef __P
# if _G_HAVE_SYS_CDEFS
# include <sys/cdefs.h>
# else
# ifdef __STDC__
# define __P(p) p
# else
# define __P(p) ()
# endif
# endif
#endif /*!__P*/
Without sys/cdefs.h, libio.h and math.h define __P with the same tokens.
With sys/cdefs.h, libio.h and math.h define __P with different tokens.
Thats why the redefn. probably didn't affect you, while it did me.
Maybe, libio.h should #undef __P once it is done.
BTW, /usr/local/include/sys/cdefs.h was probably installed on our m/cs
as part of the db package.
- Hari
--
Raja R Harinath ------------------------------ harinath@cs.umn.edu
"When all else fails, read the instructions." -- Cahn's Axiom
"Our policy is, when in doubt, do the right thing." -- Roy L Ash