gcc-3_2-branch bootstrap failure when using bison-1.50

Akim Demaille akim@epita.fr
Mon Oct 14 02:08:00 GMT 2002


| 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).



More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list