6 GCC regressions, 0 new, with your patch on 2001-09-27T21:34:17Z.

[Geoff Keating]

> Mailing-List: contact gcc-regression-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
> list-help: < mailto:gcc-regression-help@gcc.gnu.org >
> list-unsubscribe: < mailto:gcc-regression-unsubscribe@gcc.gnu.org >
> list-post: < mailto:gcc-regression@gcc.gnu.org >
> Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 10:07:04 +0200
> From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@is.elta.co.il>
> CC: geoffk@redhat.com
> Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@is.elta.co.il>
> 
> > From: "GCC regression checker" <regress@maat.cygnus.com>
> > Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 23:48:13 +0000
> > 
> > With your recent patch, GCC has some regression test failures, which
> > used to pass.  There are 0 new failures, and 6
> > failures that existed before and after that patch; 0 failures
> > have been fixed.
> > 
> > The old failures, which were not fixed or introduced by your patch, are:
> > powerpc-eabisim g++.sum g++.brendan/crash20.C
> > powerpc-eabisim g++.sum g++.law/code-gen5.C
> > powerpc-eabisim g++.sum g++.law/ctors6.C
> > powerpc-eabisim g++.sum g++.law/operators4.C
> > powerpc-eabisim g++.sum g++.other/headers1.C
> > powerpc-eabisim g++.sum g++.robertl/eb3.C
> 
> Unless someone can explain how a change in the docs could cause a
> testsuite regression, I'll consider this as a case of a script that
> wasn't told to skip the docs changes.

It doesn't say there are any new regressions; it's warning you that
there were existing regressions before your patch went in, and so it
couldn't test it fully.

-- 
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org>