This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC 3.2 Prerelease
- From: "H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: "B. Kosnik" <bkoz at nabi dot net>, Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot com>,"gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2002 11:30:48 -0700
- Subject: Re: GCC 3.2 Prerelease
- References: <20020806110509.B17451@lucon.org> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 11:20:01AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> --On Tuesday, August 06, 2002 11:05:09 AM -0700 "H. J. Lu" <email@example.com>
> > On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 06:07:25PM -0700, B. Kosnik wrote:
> >> > Agreed; I don't see how we can release 3.2 unless we can be confident
> >> > that 3.3, when released, will have the same ABI ("fixing" 3.3 before
> >> > its release, to fix the problem, might be acceptable). However, I
> >> > must admit that I am fuzzy about just what the breakage is; what are
> >> > the differences?
> >> There are 155 g++ fails, and 15 libstdc++ fails, when the 3.3
> >> libstdc++.so is used with the 3.2 toolchain.
> >> Jakub gets different results. I'm hoping that a third person will step
> >> forward and try this, and that this person's results will match either
> >> Jakub or mine. I'm willing to be wrong, of course. I'm just uneasy.
> > Here is mine on Linux/x86 configured with
> > .../configure --enable-__cxa_atexit --enable-clocale=gnu
> > --with-system-zlib --enable-shared --enable-threads=posix --enable-haifa
> > --disable-checking
> > 1. gcc 3.3 using libstdc++ from gcc 3.2. Additional failures:
> > +FAIL: backward/strstream_members.cc execution test
> > +FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/20001226-1.c, -O1
> > +FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/20001226-1.c, -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
> Here, you are claiming that changing the C++ library broke the C
> compiler. Are you sure about that?
WARNING: program timed out
ompiler exited with status 1
FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/20001226-1.c, -O1