From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20767 invoked by alias); 17 May 2006 22:13:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 20759 invoked by uid 22791); 17 May 2006 22:13:39 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from bender.bawue.de (HELO bender.bawue.de) (193.7.176.20) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 17 May 2006 22:13:36 +0000 Received: from lagash (88-106-136-76.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com [88.106.136.76]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by bender.bawue.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0C9A44C48; Thu, 18 May 2006 00:13:32 +0200 (MEST) Received: from ths by lagash with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FgUGk-0006AP-Ly; Wed, 17 May 2006 23:13:26 +0100 Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 23:53:00 -0000 To: Martin Michlmayr Cc: binutils@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Test suite results for mips-unknown-linux-gnu (2.16.93) Message-ID: <20060517221326.GD4497@networkno.de> References: <20060517215053.GA13228@deprecation.cyrius.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060517215053.GA13228@deprecation.cyrius.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 From: Thiemo Seufer X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-05/txt/msg00306.txt.bz2 Martin Michlmayr wrote: > Test Run By tbm on Wed May 17 20:54:24 2006 > Native configuration is mips-unknown-linux-gnu > > === binutils tests === > > Schedule of variations: > unix > > === binutils Summary === > > # of expected passes 35 > > === gas tests === > > Schedule of variations: > unix > > === gas Summary === > > # of expected passes 581 > # of expected failures 1 > > === ld tests === > > Schedule of variations: > unix > > FAIL: vers24a [?] > FAIL: vers24b [?] > FAIL: vers24c [?] > FAIL: visibility (hidden_undef) (non PIC, load offset) [see below] > FAIL: visibility (hidden_weak) (non PIC) [*] > FAIL: visibility (hidden_weak) [*] > FAIL: visibility (hidden_weak) (PIC main, non PIC so) [*] > FAIL: visibility (hidden_weak) (PIC main) [*] > FAIL: visibility (protected_undef) (non PIC, load offset) > FAIL: visibility (protected_weak) (non PIC) [*] > FAIL: visibility (protected_weak) [*] > FAIL: visibility (protected_weak) (PIC main, non PIC so) [*] > FAIL: visibility (protected_weak) (PIC main) [*] > FAIL: MIPS textrel-1 [see below] > FAIL: NOCROSSREFS 3 [*] > > === ld Summary === > > # of expected passes 281 > # of unexpected failures 15 > # of expected failures 20 > # of unsupported tests 1 > > [*] Thiemo pointed out to me that these fail with a segfault or a bus > error and that he cannot reproduce them when running the tests by hand. > He'll test on other hardware later. SIGILL, actually. > [?] I cannot see an error message. The expected relocation entry isn't there. [snip] > Running /home/tbm/tmp/src/binutils-2.16.93/ld/testsuite/ld-mips-elf/mips-elf.exp ... > failed with: (.text+0x10): relocation truncated to fit: R_MIPS_26 against `start'>, expected: <.*relocation truncated to fit.*> > FAIL: MIPS textrel-1 I don't see the last one, textrel-1 creates a TEXTREL section here but shouldn't. Thiemo