sparc-rtems 4.6 vs 4.7

[Joel Sherrill]

Hi,

Thanks to Eric Botcazou, David Miller, and
Ranier Orth, sparc-rtems is testable again.
It appears to be approximately the same as
the 4.6 results but I would appreciate
a double check from a sparc maintainer.

Since it looks like a lot of the failures
in both cases are lto, vect and stack-align
tests, I suspect that of the ~3100 tests
that were added, we have a number of new
tests that won't work on when compiling
specifically for an erc32 (-mcpu=cypress).

Insight appreciated.  Thanks.

=========================================
4.6.1 20110329
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-04/msg00203.html
         === gcc Summary ===

# of expected passes        68033
# of unexpected failures    714
# of expected failures        227
# of unresolved testcases    128
# of unsupported tests        1237

     === g++ Summary ===

# of expected passes        25343
# of unexpected failures    97
# of unexpected successes    1
# of expected failures        161
# of unsupported tests        446
=========================================
4.7.0 20111104
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-11/msg00440.html
     === gcc Summary ===

# of expected passes        71190
# of unexpected failures    940
# of expected failures        286
# of unresolved testcases    49
# of unsupported tests        1693


         === g++ Summary ===

# of expected passes        26704
# of unexpected failures    72
# of unexpected successes    1
# of expected failures        153
# of unsupported tests        457
=========================================

-- 
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D.             Director of Research&  Development
joel.sherrill@OARcorp.com        On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS  Huntsville AL 35805
    Support Available             (256) 722-9985