This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] Analysis of testsuite differences
- From: Jan Hubicka <hubicka at ucw dot cz>
- To: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>,Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>,Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
- Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 00:46:28 +0200
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] Analysis of testsuite differences
- References: <1083702556.11095.244.camel@localhost.localdomain>
>
> I've done a full diff between the testsuite directories of tree-ssa and
> mainline. The branch has quite a bit of new and changed stuff. Most of
> it seems OK, but there are a few tests that we have XFAILed or are not
> present in the branch.
>
> These are the changes and my impressions. Feedback welcome. The
> potential problems are the XFAILed and missing tests. I'll start with
> those.
>
>
> Thanks. Diego.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Changed in ways I don't understand
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.martin/new1.C
> Jason, you changed the CHECK() macros in this test. Are these
> OK to leave as-is?
>
> gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.robertl/eb58.C
> gcc/testsuite/g++.old-deja/g++.robertl/eb63.C
> Jason, these now add '-w -fpermissive'. OK?
>
> gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/20010516-1.c
> Jan, you removed this test from the branch. Should we put it
> back?
Hmm, I guess so.
I dimly recall that there has been some issues with this wrt valid
gimple form, but I guess I removed it by some accident. Sorry for that.
Honza