This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Gcc 3.3 regressions
- From: Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at libertysurf dot fr>
- To: "H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,aoliva at redhat dot com
- Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 09:52:38 +0200
- Subject: Re: Gcc 3.3 regressions
- References: <20030917061713.GA31150@lucon.org>
> The current gcc 3.3 has a few regressions:
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2003-09/msg00610.html
>
> vs.
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2003-09/msg00557.html
Well, I don't see any regressions between them :-)
However, a few regressions have indeed crept in recently
> FAIL: gcc.dg/pack-test-2.c (test for errors, line 6)
> FAIL: gcc.dg/pack-test-2.c (test for errors, line 7)
> FAIL: gcc.dg/pack-test-2.c (test for errors, line 10)
> FAIL: gcc.dg/pack-test-2.c (test for errors, line 14)
> FAIL: gcc.dg/pack-test-2.c (test for errors, line 19)
> FAIL: gcc.dg/pack-test-2.c (test for errors, line 21)
> FAIL: gcc.dg/pack-test-2.c (test for excess errors)
Why don't you cite
FAIL: g++.dg/parse/parameter-declaration-1.C (test for errors, line 7)
FAIL: g++.dg/parse/parameter-declaration-1.C (test for excess errors)
too?
They have something to do with line numbering.
--
Eric Botcazou