From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26878 invoked by alias); 28 Oct 2004 09:24:54 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 26862 invoked by uid 48); 28 Oct 2004 09:24:52 -0000 Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 09:24:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20041028092452.26861.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "davidm at hpl dot hp dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20041015111408.18010.davidm@hpl.hp.com> References: <20041015111408.18010.davidm@hpl.hp.com> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/18010] bad unwind info due to multiple returns (missing epilogue) X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg03449.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From davidm at hpl dot hp dot com 2004-10-28 09:24 ------- (In reply to comment #16) > Perhaps I should have read your message closer. I get timeouts for this > testcase also. However, it bootstraps fine, and the total number of > unexpected gcc failures is only 45, which is really not that bad when > you consider that there is no one actively maintaining the IA-64 port. > Only 4 of these are timeouts. Are you seeing worse results than this? Yes, it's worse but not nearly as bad as I thought. If I let the test-suite complete, I get: === gcc Summary === # of expected passes 30227 # of unexpected failures 115 # of unexpected successes 3 # of expected failures 82 # of unresolved testcases 52 # of untested testcases 28 # of unsupported tests 498 Perhaps the additional failures are due to the fact that my machine is running Debian/unstable. Anyhow, this clearly isn't as bad as I thought. I saw a couple of timeouts in a row and since that took quite some time, I thought it was hopeless. I should have been more patient. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18010