This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Testsuite Results for gcc-2.96 19990628
- To: kunert at physik dot tu-dresden dot de
- Subject: Re: Testsuite Results for gcc-2.96 19990628
- From: David Ronis <ronis at onsager dot chem dot mcgill dot ca>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 10:37:39 -0400 (EDT)
- Cc: egcs at egcs dot cygnus dot com
- Reply-To: David Ronis <ronis at onsager dot chem dot mcgill dot ca>
Hi Thomas
Thanks for the reply. I think you've got it. I build with lots of
optimization flags turned on for the stage1 and stage2 steps, specifically:
-O3 -march=pentium -ffast-math -funroll-loops -fomit-frame-pointer -fforce-mem
-fforce-addr -malign-double -malign-jumps=2 -malign-loops=2 -malign-functions=2
Of course, if the compiler generates bad code when building itself, then why
should we trust it for anything else with optimization turned on. This is
clearly a problem.
David
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Ronis wrote:
>
> I just compiled and tested the latest CVS for
>
> /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i586-pc-linux-gnulibc1/gcc-2.96/specs gcc version
> gcc-2.96 19990628 (experimental)
> === g++ Summary ===
>
> # of expected passes 5185
> # of unexpected failures 84
> # of expected failures 82
> # of untested testcases 7
Mmh, what Flags did you submit to `make bootstrap' ?
This kind of failures I only get with `CFLAGS=-O3 BOOT_CFLAGS=-O3'.
Many of them disappear (at least for me) without those additional flags.
Sometimes in april I narrowed it down to a miscompiled libgcc.a.
It seems, an optimized bootstrap is not supported.
Thomas