This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: gcc-3_2-branch bootstrap failure when using bison-1.50
- From: Akim Demaille <akim at epita dot fr>
- To: Matthias Klose <doko at cs dot tu-berlin dot de>
- Cc: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>, debian-gcc at lists dot debian dot org dot mark, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, zack at codesourcery dot com, Bison Bugs <bug-bison at gnu dot org>
- Date: 14 Oct 2002 11:08:12 +0200
- Subject: Re: gcc-3_2-branch bootstrap failure when using bison-1.50
- References: <200210130305.XAA13258@caip.rutgers.edu><15785.63316.79215.785175@gargle.gargle.HOWL><mv4r8etmm3t.fsf@nostromo.lrde.epita.fr>
| Attached are backports of patches I found on the mailing
| lists (c, cp and java). Checked today's CVS with 1.35, CVS with the
| patch attached with 1.35 and with 1.50. cp and java don't show
| regressions. for c:
|
| - CVS and CVS+patch, both bison-1.35: no regressions.
| - bison-1.35 and bison-1.50, both CVS+patch:
|
| --- test-summary-1.35 2002-10-14 00:16:08.000000000 +0200
| +++ test-summary-1.50 2002-10-13 13:55:39.000000000 +0200
| @@ -39,11 +39,43 @@
| FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/20020927-1.c, -O3 -g
| FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/loop-2e.c execution, -Os
| FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/loop-3c.c execution, -Os
| +FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/920923-1.c (test for errors, line 69)
| +FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/920923-1.c (test for errors, line 72)
| +FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/920923-1.c (test for errors, line 74)
| +FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/920923-1.c (test for errors, line 77)
| +FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/920923-1.c (test for errors, line 69)
| +FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/920923-1.c (test for errors, line 72)
| +FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/920923-1.c (test for errors, line 74)
| +FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/920923-1.c (test for errors, line 77)
| +FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/920923-1.c (test for errors, line 69)
| +FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/920923-1.c (test for errors, line 72)
| +FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/920923-1.c (test for errors, line 74)
| +FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/920923-1.c (test for errors, line 77)
| +FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/920923-1.c (test for errors, line 69)
| +FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/920923-1.c (test for errors, line 72)
| +FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/920923-1.c (test for errors, line 74)
| +FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/920923-1.c (test for errors, line 77)
| +FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/920923-1.c (test for errors, line 69)
| +FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/920923-1.c (test for errors, line 72)
| +FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/920923-1.c (test for errors, line 74)
| +FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/920923-1.c (test for errors, line 77)
| +FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/920923-1.c (test for errors, line 69)
| +FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/920923-1.c (test for errors, line 72)
| +FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/920923-1.c (test for errors, line 74)
| +FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/920923-1.c (test for errors, line 77)
| +FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/920923-1.c (test for errors, line 69)
| +FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/920923-1.c (test for errors, line 72)
| +FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/920923-1.c (test for errors, line 74)
| +FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/920923-1.c (test for errors, line 77)
| +FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/920923-1.c (test for errors, line 69)
| +FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/920923-1.c (test for errors, line 72)
| +FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/920923-1.c (test for errors, line 74)
| +FAIL: gcc.dg/noncompile/920923-1.c (test for errors, line 77)
|
| === gcc Summary ===
|
| -# of expected passes 18721
| -# of unexpected failures 6
| +# of expected passes 18689
| +# of unexpected failures 38
| # of expected failures 66
| # of unsupported tests 43
Could someone given some details on these errors? I have frequently
used pre-1.50 to bootstrap GCC, with success. Unfortunately, due to
some stupid policy here, I have stopped downloading GCC and checking
it with the current Bisons. Nevertheless, I can't imagine what
incompatibility can have been introduced in the meanwhile.
Also, I'm not sure how
| - CVS and CVS+patch, both bison-1.35: no regressions.
| - bison-1.35 and bison-1.50, both CVS+patch:
should be read: it seems to say that there are no regressions with the
patch and 1.35 (line 1), and there are regressions with the patch and
1.35 (line 2).