sparc-rtems recent test regressions

[Jeff Law]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 02/02/11 07:19, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> In the past few days, something has regressed
> on the sparc. Revision 169143 only had 699 failures
> and ~100 of those were LTO related.  David Korn's
> patch seems to have resolved those. Revision 169504
> has 2231 failures.
> 
> http://www.rtems.org/pipermail/rtems-tooltestresults/2011-January/000407.html
> 
> 
>         === gcc Summary ===
> 
> # of expected passes        67336
> # of unexpected failures    699
> # of expected failures        223
> # of unresolved testcases    128
> # of unsupported tests        1233
> /users/joel/test-gcc/b-gcc1-sparc/gcc/xgcc  version 4.6.0 20110123
> (experimental) [trunk revision 169143] (GCC)
> 
> http://www.rtems.org/pipermail/rtems-tooltestresults/2011-February/000440.html
> 
> 
> 
> === gcc Summary ===
> 
> # of expected passes 64480
> # of unexpected failures 2231
> # of expected failures 226
> # of unresolved testcases 50
> # of unsupported tests 1247
> /users/joel/test-gcc/b-gcc1-sparc/gcc/xgcc version 4.6.0 20110201
> (experimental) [trunk revision 169504] (GCC)
> 
> Any ideas?
Check 169231, it's exposed multiple latent bugs.  I'm seriously
considering pulling it.

jeff

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJNSW1kAAoJEBRtltQi2kC7LAkH/j+maTGTw8/xV1w8oJ1pb+C9
tzYsW0uAhLm3E6T2CjwPfdYEdcLdPRp0NL0VB2AVSqiKj0kcWG30x/GaHgDg2CSt
xBpKPLVudml6Zf+2L4JuEkj3KlI/g1KMXudsfM9fR+SHlkWPsYyJz3cAYwdWesWg
0yzW3vqSUA+M1sL+TestGEjRW5+uGyjwhbg3iZ0QG+g6FXPXEXMp/gOGfkETFzFY
VhvL4iQ2sbMYg5xn3wEAPs023hedpXWwg4udWtl5KrMgkgK9MLg13nPu9jXSmXrU
zNaO4JzUquLW8sjiHu4llI9UTraKmWkoUd4fT5Ji/wC3XasHseUnqYSZ5vdMtlY=
=qyya
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----