This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C++ ABI testing issues, gcc-3.3 <-> gcc-3.2 compatibility
- From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- To: Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>
- Cc: dberlin at dberlin dot org, Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot de>, "Goodman, Joe" <joe dot goodman at intel dot com>, bkoz at redhat dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, rth at redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2002 16:14:00 +0200
- Subject: Re: C++ ABI testing issues, gcc-3.3 <-> gcc-3.2 compatibility
- References: <Pine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
- Reply-to: Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 03:32:51PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Daniel Berlin <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> |> > |> > That's the same result as given on IA-32 or IA-64, but those
> |> > |> > tests are
> |> > |> > #if !defined __i386__ && !defined __ia64__
> |> > |> > Guess at least __alpha__ is a good candidate for this treatment too.
> |> > |>
> |> > |> x86-64 has the same problem, everything passes except bitfield3 (this
> |> > |> is with GCC 3.2 plus some extra patches),
> |> >
> |> > Same on s390x. Are there any platforms where it *does* pass?
> |> I could swear I ran these tests on x86 or powerpc (can't remember which)
> |> when it was first released by Intel, and everything passed.
> I just tried on ppc and ppc64 and getting the following failures:
> Test 4 Failure: bitfield3.cpp:60
> Test 9 Failure: dynamic1.cpp:79
> missing: _Znwm
> missing: _Znam
Just for completeness:
Test 4 Failure: bitfield3.cpp:60
Test 9 Failure: dynamic1.cpp:79