This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Gcc 3.3 regressions


> 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


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]