This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [tree-ssa] Regressions vs mainline (2004-05-07)
- From: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>
- To: "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Cc: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>, Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 16:12:05 -0400
- Subject: Re: [tree-ssa] Regressions vs mainline (2004-05-07)
- Organization: Red Hat Canada
- References: <1083960280.3285.46.camel@localhost.localdomain>
On Fri, 2004-05-07 at 16:04, Diego Novillo wrote:
> There have been several fixes in the last couple of days. This is the
> current state of regressions vs mainline:
>
> New regressions in gcc.sum.gz:
> FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/dwarf-die7.c scan-assembler 1.*DW_AT_inline
> FAIL: 209: expected branch percentages not found: 25
> FAIL: gcc.misc-tests/gcov-4b.c gcov: 0 failures in line counts
>
> The dwarf2 regression may be related to one of the PRs opened by
> mec (PR 14048, PR 14049). I do not know yet whether it's
> reasonable to wait after the merge to fix this one (rth?).
>
> The two others require that we build a flowgraph at -O0. I
> would like to leave these until after the merge.
>
>
>
> New regressions in g++.sum.gz:
> FAIL: g++.dg/parse/stack1.C (test for excess errors)
>
> This one requires an extensive modification to the gimplifier to
> avoid deep recursion. This will have to be fixed after the
> merge.
>
> FAIL: 258: expected branch percentages not found: 25
> FAIL: g++.dg/gcov/gcov-1.C gcov: 0 failures in line counts
> FAIL: 23:is 2:should be 1
> FAIL: g++.dg/gcov/gcov-2.C gcov: 1 failures in line counts
>
> Similar to the GCC tests. We need the flowgraph at -O0. Post
> merge.
>
>
> FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.brendan/crash13.C (test for errors
> FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.bugs/900205_03.C (test for errors
> FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.bugs/900205_03.C (test for errors
> FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.bugs/900205_03.C (test for errors
> FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.bugs/900205_03.C (test for errors
> FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.law/friend5.C (test for errors
> FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.law/friend5.C (test for errors
> FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.mike/p646.C (test for warnings
> FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.mike/p646.C (test for warnings
> FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.mike/p646.C (test for warnings
> FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.mike/p646.C (test for warnings
> FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.mike/p646.C (test for warnings
>
> These are diagnostics that are either not emitted or at
> different lines. Jason, are they fixable pre-merge?
>
>
>
> New regressions in libffi.sum.gz:
> NONE
>
>
>
> New regressions in libjava.sum.gz:
> FAIL: Array_3 execution - gij test
> FAIL: Array_3 execution - gij test
>
> In [link] aph says that it's a C++ bug.
>
Hmph. Sorry about this. I can't lookup the message because gcc.gnu.org
still has not propagated its new IP. So, you'll just have to trust me
;)
Diego.