This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Results for 2.97 20001120 (experimental) testsuite on sparc-sun-solaris2.8 with -mcpu=ultrasparc -m64
- To: Brad Lucier <lucier at math dot purdue dot edu>
- Subject: Re: Results for 2.97 20001120 (experimental) testsuite on sparc-sun-solaris2.8 with -mcpu=ultrasparc -m64
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 21:26:00 +0100
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <200011211819.eALIJ7D26501@polya.math.purdue.edu>
- Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 01:19:07PM -0500, Brad Lucier wrote:
> This message does not contain the actual test results, because they
> were just bounced by the gcc.gnu.org mail handler for being over
> 200,000 bytes in size!
> But I do have a question: The results of gcc testing on this target
> are not so great with 32-bit code (89 failures in gcc), see, e.g.,
> but they are absolutely abysmal for 64-bit code (with -mcpu=ultrasparc -m64).
> Is Jakub's work on the subreg-byte branch an attempt to fix this?
I'd say it this way:
=== gcc Summary ===
# of expected passes 12819
# of unexpected failures 15
# of expected failures 56
# of unsupported tests 41
/usr/src/redhat/BUILD/gcc-2.96-20000731/obj-sparc64-redhat-linux/gcc/xgcc version 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.0)
(-mcpu=ultrasparc -m64; this compiler has subreg byte patch in).