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]

patch for new 940409-1 failures


At the end are the exact list of failures that we've just inherited in
the new code sincd 0114.  Turns out this is just a testsuite problem.
Since this is the only case in gcc.failure and none of those files have
changed since the last update, I started digging round in ChangeLogs.

The solution to this problem is to:
 cd gcc/testsuite/gcc.failure
 mv 940409-1.cexp 940409-1.x

Once this is done, a:
 make check-gcc RUNTESTFLAGS="failure.exp"
passes once again.   (More accurately, I suppose it fails in the proper 
way.)

Here is a patch that will have the correct results, I think.   I won't
die of shock if just renaming the file really isn't the right thing to 
do.


Sun Jan 18 23:26:59 1998  Robert Lipe  (robertl@dgii.com)

	* gcc.c-failure: Rename lone .cexp file to .x file, per earlier
		change from Jeff Law.


--- 940409-1.cexp       Sun Jan 18 23:24:57 1998
+++ /dev/null   Sun Jan 18 23:21:08 1998
@@ -1,6 +0,0 @@
-# gcc doesn't handle compile/940409-1.cexp properly, but it's an obscure bug
-# so rather than constantly seeing it fail, just record it as expected to
-# fail.
-
-set torture_compile_xfail "*-*-*"
-return 0 ;# `0' says we didn't handle the testcase ourselves so continue

--- /dev/null   Sun Jan 18 23:21:08 1998
+++ 940409-1.x  Tue Aug 19 02:36:26 1997
@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+# gcc doesn't handle compile/940409-1.cexp properly, but it's an obscure bug
+# so rather than constantly seeing it fail, just record it as expected to
+# fail.
+
+set torture_compile_xfail "*-*-*"
+return 0 ;# `0' says we didn't handle the testcase ourselves so continue





I decided that just adding a collection of 'summary' files then
processing them and diffing them was the most practical way to report
this stuff to the list without announcing loudly each week that things
that have failed since the epoch still fail.


--- multi-980114/summary
+++ multi-980118/summary
@@ -4,9 +4,19 @@
 
 Running target unix/-mcoff
 FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/scope-1.c compilation,  -O2 -g 
+FAIL: gcc.failure/940409-1.c,  -O0  
+FAIL: gcc.failure/940409-1.c,  -O1  
+FAIL: gcc.failure/940409-1.c,  -O2  
+FAIL: gcc.failure/940409-1.c,  -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -finline-functions  
+FAIL: gcc.failure/940409-1.c,  -O2 -g  
 
 
 Running target unix/-melf
+FAIL: gcc.failure/940409-1.c,  -O0  
+FAIL: gcc.failure/940409-1.c,  -O1  
+FAIL: gcc.failure/940409-1.c,  -O2  
+FAIL: gcc.failure/940409-1.c,  -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -finline-functions  
+FAIL: gcc.failure/940409-1.c,  -O2 -g  
 
 
 Running target unix/-fPIC
@@ -25,6 +35,11 @@
 FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/nestfunc-1.c execution,  -O2 
 FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/nestfunc-1.c execution,  -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -finline-functions 
 FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/nestfunc-1.c execution,  -O2 -g 
+FAIL: gcc.failure/940409-1.c,  -O0  
+FAIL: gcc.failure/940409-1.c,  -O1  
+FAIL: gcc.failure/940409-1.c,  -O2  
+FAIL: gcc.failure/940409-1.c,  -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -finline-functions  
+FAIL: gcc.failure/940409-1.c,  -O2 -g  
 FAIL: gcc.misc-tests/gcov-1.c execution test
 FAIL: gcov-1.c:1:is 4:should be 11
 FAIL: gcov-1.c:1:is 5:should be 10
@@ -210,6 +225,6 @@
 
 
 
-/home/play/negcs/gcc/xgcc version egcs-2.91.03 971225 (gcc-2.8.0)
-/home/play/negcs/gcc/testsuite/../xgcc version egcs-2.91.03 971225 (gcc-2.8.0)
-/home/play/negcs/gcc/g77 version egcs-2.91.03 971225 (gcc-2.8.0)
+/home/play/negcs/gcc/xgcc version egcs-2.91.04 980115 (gcc-2.8.0 release)
+/home/play/negcs/gcc/testsuite/../xgcc version egcs-2.91.04 980115 (gcc-2.8.0 release)
+/home/play/negcs/gcc/g77 version egcs-2.91.04 980115 (gcc-2.8.0 release)
-- 
Robert Lipe       http://www.dgii.com/people/robertl       robertl@dgii.com


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