Re: missing tests for 3.2.3-pre

[Loren James Rittle <rittle at latour dot rsch dot comm dot mot dot com>]

In article <20030418110647 dot A7756 at synopsys dot com>,
Joe Buck<jbuck at synopsys dot com> writes:

> The gcc-testresults archive does not show any test results for the
> gcc 3.2.3 prerelease (of 20030416) for an Alpha platform, or for
> FreeBSD.  The other primary platforms are covered.  The criteria
> for 3.1, which we are still using for 3.2.x, specifies
> i386-unknown-freebsd4.5 and alpha-unknown-linux-gnu.

> Could anyone do tests?  I'd hate for us to ship 3.2.3 and have it
> not work on BSD or Alpha.

> Richard, you are listed as the Alpha tester; Loren, you are listed as
> the FreeBSD tester.

Hi Joe, thank you for taking an active interesting in monitoring
release quality.  I've started the process for pre2.  I'm sorry, but
these things take some time when there are *three* active branches of
development.  A detailed report on the status of pre1 went directly to
the gcc 3.2.3 release manager within 3 days of pre1's release.  I will
include it below since I didn't CC the gcc list.  Summary, there are
no interesting regressions on: i386-unknown-freebsd4.8 (-STABLE),
i386-unknown-freebsd5.0 (-CURRENT), alpha-unknown-freebsd5.0
(-CURRENT).  Also, all current failures are either bogus, caused by
FreeBSD-side changes (and more-or-less harmless) or well-known for
this port.  I don't actually have a freebsd4.5 machine around to test
anymore.  I'm currently expecting a similar total cycle time for pre2.

Regards,
Loren

Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 06:50:08 -0500 (CDT)
From: Loren James Rittle <rittle at latour dot rsch dot comm dot mot dot com>
Message-Id: <200304151150 dot h3FBo8aF077319 at latour dot rsch dot comm dot mot dot com>
To: gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
CC: pfeifer at dbai dot tuwien dot ac dot at
Subject: Notice to 3.2.3 release manager (a.k.a Gaby)

Hi Gaby,

First of all, thanks for doing the hard job of release manager of FSF
gcc 3.2.3.  Here is a primary evaluation platform report (only the
FreeBSD4/i386 port is so listed, but it was just as easy to do all of
them concurrently).  Status: functionality-wise we are good-to-go on
this platform.  Tested against dejagnu framework before install only,
thus I didn't test any aspects of performance or real-world tests.
Tested 'gmake install' and then spot-checked the installed compiler.

I have bootstrapped the 04-12-2003 tarball (all languages, save ada)
which you put up for testing and analyzed the test results on:

i386-unknown-freebsd4.8 "with objdir configuration, system binutils, GNU make"

    http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2003-04/msg00891.html

    No regressions; zero real failures, save libjava issues.

i386-unknown-freebsd5.0 "with srcdir configuration, system binutils, GNU make"
alpha-unknown-freebsd5.0 "with objdir configuration, system binutils, BSD make"

    http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2003-04/msg00888.html

    All of these regressions appear related to the fact that C99
    support is now enabled when libstdc++-v3 is configured on this
    port (due to libc upgrade, not any change in libstdc++-v3):

    +FAIL: 26_numerics/c99_classification_macros_c.cc (test for excess errors)
    +FAIL: 27_io/ostream_inserter_arith.cc execution test
    +FAIL: "all g++ test cases compiled with -ansi"

    Mostly harmless.  No patch will be forthcoming for the 3.2.X branch.

  These are all bogus FAILs seen on all three platforms (related to
  the bison version used to build the files in the tarball?):

  +FAIL: objc.dg/naming-1.m  (test for errors, line 20)
  +FAIL: objc.dg/naming-1.m (test for excess errors)
  +FAIL: objc.dg/naming-2.m  (test for errors, line 7)
  +FAIL: objc.dg/naming-2.m (test for excess errors)

Regards,
Loren