42 GCC regressions, 33 new, with your patch on 2002-07-29T23:04:06Z.

[cgd@broadcom.com]

At 29 Jul 2002 22:40:33 -0700, Chris G. Demetriou wrote:
> At 29 Jul 2002 22:29:10 -0700, Eric Christopher wrote:
> > Does this mean that there actually weren't any new failures or what?
> 
> i looked through the actual log, and before those faulures it said:
> 
> ERROR: couldn't load /anubis/mummy/tbox/mips-elf/build/test-gdb/gdb.base/bitfields into mips-elf-gdb.
> 
> I dunno about previous runs, but i assume not being able to build that
> file isn't normal.
> 
> i've started a test run of my own, in the hope of seeing what's up w/
> compiling that file.

with sources from last night, i had no problem w/ a clean, combined
tree of binutils/newlib/gdb/sim/gcc on these tests:

Running /home/cgd/proj/gcc-testing/combined/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/bitfields.exp ...
PASS: gdb.base/bitfields.exp: print flags
PASS: gdb.base/bitfields.exp: continuing to break1 #1 
PASS: gdb.base/bitfields.exp: bitfield uniqueness (s1)
PASS: gdb.base/bitfields.exp: continuing to break1 #2 
PASS: gdb.base/bitfields.exp: bitfield uniqueness (u1)
PASS: gdb.base/bitfields.exp: continuing to break1 #3

etc.  None of these passed on the tester.



cgd