This is the mail archive of the
gcc-regression@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: 1894 GCC regressions, 1878 new, with your patch on2002-07-24T18:30:44Z.
- From: Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>
- To: cgd at broadcom dot com
- Cc: gcc-regression at gcc dot gnu dot org, jh at suse dot cz, mark at klomp dot org, rearnsha at arm dot com, tromey at redhat dot com, echristo at redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 16:20:04 -0700
- Subject: Re: 1894 GCC regressions, 1878 new, with your patch on2002-07-24T18:30:44Z.
- References: <200207242138.g6OLcIX05173@maat.sfbay.redhat.com> <yov5ptxc232f.fsf@broadcom.com>
- Reply-to: Geoff Keating <geoffk at redhat dot com>
> From: cgd@broadcom.com
> Date: 24 Jul 2002 15:06:48 -0700
> At Wed, 24 Jul 2002 21:38:18 +0000, GCC regression checker wrote:
> > With your recent patch, GCC has some regression test failures, which
> > used to pass. There are 1878 new failures, and 16
> > failures that existed before and after that patch; 0 failures
> > have been fixed.
>
> "D'oh!"
>
> These are mine; libgloss will need to be updated (after the patch in
>
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/newlib/2002/msg00362.html
>
> is applied to newlib; hopefully today), and then mips will go back to
> working.
The problem with that is that the tester won't update its binutils or
newlib unless the tree has no regressions, because otherwise it can't
tell if it's updating to a broken binutils or newlib. In addition, it
can't upgrade right now anyway because gdb introduces new regressions.
So, can you add some backwards-compatibility for old newlibs?
--
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org> <geoffk@redhat.com>