HPUX10.20 REGRESSION, EGCS-1.0.3A TO 19980803 -Reply

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message < 199808061716.KAA20527@atrus.synopsys.com >you write:
  > 
  > > I guess your point is that egcs-1.0.3a might have failed to show
  > > errors, as a side effect of some other failure, the most likely such
  > > possibility being that that particular test was skipped in 1.0.3a
  > > due to failure to compile.
  > 
  > Yes.  Basically I'm asking that for any apparent regressions, the test
  > runner should look in gcc.log or g++.log and see what egcs-1.0.3a (or
  > gcc-2.8.1, for those running test on it) really did when running the
  > egcs-1.1-snapshot test suite.  Here "regression" means either that 1.0.3.a
  > says PASS and 1.1-snapshot says FAIL, or 1.0.3.a says XPASS and
  > 1.1-snapshot says XFAIL.
  > 
  > It's not necessary to look at the full set of failures, but I found, for
  > the sparc Solaris 2.5.1 tests, that all the regressions were false.  Here
  > "false" meant that a test said XPASS but the compiler then core dumped, so
  > it is not true that 1.0.3a handled any tests correctly that
  > egcs-1.1-snaphsot failed on.  So what I'm asking is that if you find
  > regressions you check to make sure that they are "real".
Exactly.  That is the plan.  

jeff