This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Request for testsuite regression period

From: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>
To: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 14:26:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Request for testsuite regression period
References: <200603061734.k26HYgbX016672@earth.phy.uc.edu> <20060306192136.GA18212@synopsys.com>

On Mar 6, 2006, at 2:21 PM, Joe Buck wrote:

On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 12:34:42PM -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:

What is the policy for testsuite regressions that have been
there for over 48 hours and effect all targets and have not
been fixed yet?


In this case, wouldn't removing the patch just move breakage from C++
to Ada?  Or do I misunderstand?

You are misunderstanding, there are a couple different sets of testsuite regressions. One in gcc.dg/tree-ssa and one in g++.dg. Ada also has a couple too. Reverting Jeff's patch will fix the gcc.dg/tree-ssa regresions and one of Ada's. Rest of Ada testsuite regressions are due to Roger's fold patch. The C++ testsuite regressions are due to Lee Millward's patch on 2006-02-03.

Thanks,
Andrew Pinski

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Request for testsuite regression period
  - From: Jeffrey A Law

References:
- Request for testsuite regression period
  - From: Andrew Pinski
- Re: Request for testsuite regression period
  - From: Joe Buck

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]