From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1848 invoked by alias); 24 Jan 2007 04:26:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 1806 invoked by uid 48); 24 Jan 2007 04:26:39 -0000 Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 04:26:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20070124042639.1805.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug bootstrap/30342] Tough time building 4.2.0 (CVS) on WinXP with Cygwin In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "rob1weld at aol dot com" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-01/txt/msg02050.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #4 from rob1weld at aol dot com 2007-01-24 04:26 ------- The newest test results for building according to these instructions are here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-01/msg00811.html Most tests are completed with a dozen (or less) errors - that is not too bad with _every_ possible option enabled. Libmudflap is usable (for debugging, then recompile with the feature off) and most of the errors are "output pattern test" errors (which, to ME, means that the expect script is not catching the output correctly) discounting those errors there are very few errors remaining. I'm looking into the Java test to see why there are so many errors. I did make a couple of bug reports but Java is not my strongest language - I can only hope that someone else will fix it for the cygwin platform :) . Overall 4.2.0 is testing very well (on _my_ platform), there are fewer errors reported than "make -k check" on 4.1.1 (release) - this does not mean it actually "works" better, only that the error checking does not find errors ;) . -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30342