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: GCC 4.8.0 Status Report (2012-10-29), Stage 1 to end soon


On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:

> How was that change tested?  I'm seeing thousands of new UNRESOLVED
> failures, of the form:
> spawn -ignore SIGHUP /usr/src/gcc/obj415/gcc/xgcc -B/usr/src/gcc/obj415/gcc/ /usr/src/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/branch-cost1.c -fno-diagnostics-show-caret -O2 -fdump-tree-gimple -mbranch-cost=0 -S -o branch-cost1.s
> PASS: gcc.target/i386/branch-cost1.c (test for excess errors)
> gcc.target/i386/branch-cost1.c: dump file does not exist
> UNRESOLVED: gcc.target/i386/branch-cost1.c scan-tree-dump-times gimple "if " 2
> gcc.target/i386/branch-cost1.c: dump file does not exist
> UNRESOLVED: gcc.target/i386/branch-cost1.c scan-tree-dump-not gimple " & "
>
> See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-11/msg00033.html
> or http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-11/msg00034.html, compare that
> to http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-11/msg00025.html
> or http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2012-11/msg00026.html
>
> The difference is just your patch and unrelated sh backend change.

I'm seeing the same failures.  Sharad, could you fix them or revert your change?


Thanks.  Diego.


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