This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: 2 new regression on darwin6.1
- From: Jim Ingham <jingham at apple dot com>
- To: Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Andreas Tobler <toa at pop dot agri dot ch>, GCC <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 10:13:45 -0700
- Subject: Re: 2 new regression on darwin6.1
Expect bugs don't seem to be the cause of this, which is great, but
just for background...
There were some kernel bugs that were causing expect to hang waiting
for a program that exited. One bug caused wait to sometimes not return
when the program died, this one was fixed in Jaguar. Another caused
loss of output from a program that had died (when the program was
killed the output buffers were not being flushed or something). This
one can be worked around by judicious sleep's before exit (I think the
folks here hacked around it this way in gcc - Stan or somebody would
know more). It is also fixed, but not in a released kernel.
With these two fixes, expect now seems to run both the gcc & gdb
testsuites well on X. Actually, gdb was only hit by the former bug, so
its testsuite runs fine on straight Jaguar.
On Thursday, October 10, 2002, at 10:26 PM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
"Andreas" == Andreas Tobler <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
so far I couldn't find what is the reason for, but on darwin6.1 I get
2 regressions by this evening.
IOW, the tests passed with last nights cvs on trunk. It must have
happend during the last 8 hours.
Here the failing TC's:
FAIL: gcc.dg/cpp/assembler.S spurious warning (test for bogus
messages, line 7)
FAIL: gcc.dg/cpp/assembler.S (test for excess errors)
This might be a dejagnu bug. It may also be some silly OS bug when
spawning lots of processes. It gets confused, and you end up getting
bogus errors. I don't know if this is fixed in Jaguar, but I know
that in previous versions you'd have to do "make check" a few times
and report the union of the runs :).
Perhaps Jim Ingham can elaborate on this. He had explained the bug to
me in more eloquent words.
...and perhaps, it's an actual regression failure..
Jim Ingham email@example.com