libjava testresults (Was: basic-improvements call for testers)

[Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp dot org>]

Hi (java@gcc.gnu.org added to the CC),

On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 10:36:50AM -0800, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> 
> I have now committed a merge from trunk to the 3.4 basic-improvements
> branch.  My tests show only one significant difference between
> testsuite results on the mainline and the branch: that is an
> additional failure of the libjava testsuite.  As the libjava test
> suite is currently in bad shape with 65 unexpected failures on the
> mainline, I am not inclined to hold the merge over it.

That is strange. I tested both mainline and the 3.4-bi branch last night
and the results don't look that bad.

                === libjava tests ===
 
@@ -56,17 +50,15 @@
 FAIL: SyncTest execution - gij test
 WARNING: program timed out.
 FAIL: SyncTest execution - gij test
-FAIL: pr8823 execution - gij test
 FAIL: pr8823 compilation from bytecode
-FAIL: pr8823 execution - gij test
 FAIL: pr8823 -O compilation from bytecode
 
                === libjava Summary ===
 
-# of expected passes           2881
-# of unexpected failures       8
+# of expected passes           2885
+# of unexpected failures       6
 # of expected failures         14
-# of untested testcases        16
+# of untested testcases        14

-Compiler version: 3.3 20021215 (experimental) 
+Compiler version: 3.4-bi 20021213 (experimental) 

So on the branch I get 6 instead of 8 failures. Nice :)

This was on i686-pc-linux-gnu with:

Debian GNU/Linux testing/unstable
Linux 2.4.19-k7
binutils Version: 2.13.90.0.16-1
glibc Version: 2.3.1-5

Also my tests on powerpc on the mainline don't look that bad.
(Although there are some more failures there since on powerpc I include
the results of the Mauve testsuite.)

Could you take a look in the libjava.log file to see what actually goes
wrong on your setup?

Cheers,

Mark