This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Regression(?) on the 3.2 branch: 23_containers/vector_capacity.ccexecution test
- From: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at bitrange dot com>
- To: libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org, <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2002 21:51:54 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Regression(?) on the 3.2 branch: 23_containers/vector_capacity.ccexecution test
>From '2002-11-24 05:00 UTC' to '2002-12-09 04:00 UTC' appeared:
FAIL: 23_containers/vector_capacity.cc execution test
on the 3.2 branch for all newlib targets (mmix-knuth-mmixware,
cris-axis-elf, v850-unknown-elf, m32r-unknown-elf,
mn10300-unknown-elf, arm-unknown-elf, powerpc-unknown-eabisim)
with my spurious multi-target testing. The test does not fail
on cris-axis-linux-gnu (statically linked), so perhaps your
favorite GNU/Linux host does not show the failure. Some targets
time out the test, some fail with messages about invalid
instructions or invalid memory accesses.
It doesn't help bug-tracking, that the way the libstdc++-v3
project adds to the testsuite by *modifying* existing named
test-files. I see ChangeLog entries in this time-period like:
* testsuite/23_containers/vector_capacity.cc (test03): Add.
A file like 23_containers/vector_capacity.cc counts as *one*
test: it fails or succeeds as one. The sub-tests within it are
not discernible without unduly extra work.
Can the libstdc++-v3 project please consider adding *files* when
adding to the test-suite? For example, the added test could
have been testsuite/23_containers/vector_capacity/03.cc or
testsuite/23_containers/vector_capacity-03.cc. Framework in a
header file or library file. I see you have a test-specific
library file already.
I still don't know whether the 23_containers/vector_capacity.cc
failure is a "real" regression. I'll add a PR for this.
PS. To test libstdc++-v3 with
<URL:http://gcc.gnu.org/simtest-howto.html>, you need to patch
libstdc++-v3/testsuite/Makefile.in like in