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]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Splay Tree



The original author of this patch said he sent his copyright assignment. I only did minor modification to his work so I don't I think I should send it too.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-10/msg00833.html


I already did a bootstrap and check to be sure it worked right when I first sent my modifications. But now I did it against current head and I get this:

# diff summary-log-normal summary-log-patched
108,110d107
< FAIL: PR27908 execution - source compiled test
< FAIL: PR27908 -O3 execution - bytecode->native test
< FAIL: SyncTest execution - gij test
114,115c111
< # of expected passes          7000
< # of unexpected failures      3
---
# of expected passes 7006
117c113
< # of untested testcases               11
---
# of untested testcases 8

# diff summary-log-normal2 summary-log-patched 100d99 < FAIL: libgomp.fortran/omp_parse3.f90 -O0 execution test 104,105c103 < # of expected passes 1543 < # of unexpected failures 1 ---
# of expected passes 1544
110,111d107
< FAIL: SyncTest execution - gij test
< FAIL: SyncTest execution - gij test
115,116c111
< # of expected passes          7002
< # of unexpected failures      2
---
# of expected passes 7006
118c113
< # of untested testcases               10
---
# of untested testcases 8

Results are better with this patch, but I dont think the improving its related.


On Mon, 30 Oct 2006, DJ Delorie wrote:


Could this patch be applied now?
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-07/msg00210.html

Assuming it's been bootstrapped with no regressions, and the legal paperwork is in place, yes.



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