This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [Fwd: 3 GCC regressions, 0 new, with your patch on2001-08-09T11:45:02Z.]
- To: aldyh at redhat dot com
- Subject: Re: [Fwd: 3 GCC regressions, 0 new, with your patch on2001-08-09T11:45:02Z.]
- From: Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>
- Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 13:21:57 -0700
- CC: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: Geoff Keating <geoffk at redhat dot com>
> From: Aldy Hernandez <email@example.com>
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Date: 09 Aug 2001 17:15:17 +0300
> is this necessary? --to know that nothing got fixed? seems kinda
This is a FAQ. I will add the answer to the regression tester's page.
> -----Forwarded Message-----
> From: GCC regression checker <email@example.com>
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: 3 GCC regressions, 0 new, with your patch on
> With your recent patch, GCC has some regression test failures, which
> used to pass. There are 0 new failures, and 3
> 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++.dg/opt/alias1.C
> powerpc-eabisim gcc.sum gcc.dg/special/gcsec-1.c
> native gcc.sum gcc.dg/special/gcsec-1.c
> For more information, see <http://www.cygnus.com/~geoffk/gcc-regression/>.
> Geoffrey Keating <email@example.com>
> (via an automated GCC regression-testing script.)
- Geoffrey Keating <firstname.lastname@example.org>