This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: C++ PATCH: Improve exceptions/inlining compile-time performance


> 	By the way, the following regressions appeared on the GCC 3.3
> branch: 

One thing at a time.  

Let's just do 3.3 for the moment, and then we'll get 3.4 fixed up.  The
output I report below is for top-of-branch with no local patches.

I'm very confused by this one:

> FAIL: g++.dg/parse/class1.C (test for excess errors)

With a cross compiler from i686-pc-linux-gnu to powerpc-ibm-aix4.3, I
get the exact same messages for these tests as I do with a native
compiler.  In particular:

[mitchell at sirius gcc]$ ./cc1plus -fmessage-length=0
../../gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/parse/class1.C
 int N::f()
../../gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/parse/class1.C:5: error: declaration of
`struct N::A' in `int N::f()' which does not enclose `N'
../../gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/parse/class1.C:5: confused by earlier errors,
bailing out

There is a dg-error entry at line 5, so I'm not sure why this test is
failing.  What does your g++.log file say for this test?

(The 3.3 automated regression tester does not seem to have a web site,
so there's no way to look this up.)

I'm also confused by this one:

> FAIL: g++.dg/warn/weak1.C (test for excess errors)

The output I get is:

  weak1.C:5: warning: weak declaration of `void foo()' not supported

which seems very reasonable, given that it's not support on AIX.  I
can't see how this test would ever have passed.  Shouldn't AIX just be
added to the list of targets expected to fail for that test?  (The test
is already XFAILed for *-*-coff and i?86-pc-cygwin.)

> FAIL: g++.dg/warn/inline1.C (test for excess errors)

I understand what's wrong with this one, and will work on it tomorrow.  
This is a problem on systems that don't have weak.

> FAIL: g++.other/decl5.C (test for excess errors)

This is another one where I get the exact same output with the cross
compiler and the native compiler -- and the native compiler passes the
test.  There is again, a "confused by earlier errors" message; is that
not working for you for some reason?

> FAIL: g++.pt/deduct5.C (test for excess errors)

This one is fixed by my patch to pt.c, which you tested out.  The
comdat2.C failure is related to the instantiate12.C problem.

> FAIL: g++.pt/instantiate12.C (test for excess errors)

I understand what's wrong with this one, and will work on it tomorrow.
This is a problem on systems that don't have weak.

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
mark at codesourcery dot com


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