This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: [PATCH] Re: 3 new fails with builtin patch
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at unitus dot it>
- Cc: Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>, Roger Sayle <roger at eyesopen dot com>, Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 01 Apr 2002 01:24:44 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Re: 3 new fails with builtin patch
- Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
- References: <Pine.SOL.3.91.1020330082830.26274D-100000@taarna.cygnus.com> <3CA5F75B.5040107@unitus.it>
Paolo Carlini <pcarlini@unitus.it> writes:
| Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
|
| >>Hi. However, why g++.old-deja/g++.other/builtins9.C does not fail during
| >>g++ regression testing? This I cannot understand because, to be honest,
| >>I don't know in detail how those tests are carried out. Perhaps are
| >>build not link?!? Roger (and Mark) of course meant to link too, but...
| >>
| >Dunno.
| >
| Now I know why.
| Just look at g++.log: all those g++.old-deja/g++.other tests are built
| /o/n/l/y -O2
| In order to properly test what was meant to test, it is needed a:
Paolo, thanks for the detective work.
Incidently, Mark, I think we all agreed that new testcases should go
under g++.dg, not g++.old-deja. g++.dg don't unilateraly set any
optimization level, I think that is a good path (we would have caught
this regression).
-- Gaby