Testsuite Results for gcc-2.96 19990628

[David Ronis]

Hi Thomas

Thanks for the reply.	I think you've got it.  I build with lots of 
optimization flags turned on for the stage1 and stage2 steps, specifically:

-O3 -march=pentium -ffast-math -funroll-loops -fomit-frame-pointer -fforce-mem 
-fforce-addr -malign-double -malign-jumps=2 -malign-loops=2 -malign-functions=2

Of course, if the compiler generates bad code when building itself, then why 
should we trust it for anything else with optimization turned on.  This is 
clearly a problem.

David
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

David Ronis wrote:
	> 
	> I just compiled and tested the latest CVS for
	> 
	> /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i586-pc-linux-gnulibc1/gcc-2.96/specs gcc version
	> gcc-2.96 19990628 (experimental)
	>                 === g++ Summary ===
	> 
	> # of expected passes            5185
	> # of unexpected failures        84
	> # of expected failures          82
	> # of untested testcases         7
	
	Mmh, what Flags did you submit to `make bootstrap' ? 
	This kind of failures I only get with `CFLAGS=-O3 BOOT_CFLAGS=-O3'.
	Many of them disappear (at least for me) without those additional flags.
	Sometimes in april I narrowed it down to a miscompiled libgcc.a. 
	It seems, an optimized bootstrap is not supported.
	
	Thomas