Re: gcc 3.1 installed on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.00

["John David Anglin" <dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca>]

> > There seem to be a number of failures in the test cases, but as I'm not very 
> > familiar with the test suite I don't know how to interpret the results.
> 
> Almost all of the unexpected failures seem to have to do with the handling
> of weak symbols, mostly in corner cases.

We don't support weak symbols under hpux, so all the weak related
failures can be safely ignored.  A number of weak related tests
have been added recently and they don't detect properly the lack
of compiler support for these symbols.

> The comment "crash test - XFAIL" appears in both tests, indicating that
> whoever put that comment in knows that the compiler crashes, but marked it
> XFAIL.  I don't think that we should be doing that.  I have no problem

I agree.

> > We've been trying to compile OmniORB4 with gcc 3.1 on hpux, and it seems 
> > that g++ crashes on some files if -O2 optimization is used, but without 
> > optimization it works.
> > 
> > My question is, would it be useful to distil the compiler optimizer crash to 
> > a test case, or is a similar failure mode already visible from the gcc 
> > testsuite results on HP?
> 
> You have almost certainly found a new bug, unless the message you see is
> identical to one of the two messages above.  In any case, please file
> a bug report: see http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html for instructions.

There aren't any failures in the g++ or gcc testsuite under hpux that would
explain your problem with OmniORB4.  The remaining g++ fails are caused
by testsuite problems and hpux not supporting weak symbols.

Dave
-- 
J. David Anglin                                  dave.anglin@nrc.ca
National Research Council of Canada              (613) 990-0752 (FAX: 952-6605)