From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25064 invoked by alias); 5 Nov 2014 17:49:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 25040 invoked by uid 89); 5 Nov 2014 17:49:39 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: mail-la0-f44.google.com Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com (HELO mail-la0-f44.google.com) (209.85.215.44) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 05 Nov 2014 17:49:38 +0000 Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id gf13so1174308lab.3 for ; Wed, 05 Nov 2014 09:49:34 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.120.133 with SMTP id lc5mr70097125lab.62.1415209774381; Wed, 05 Nov 2014 09:49:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.112.4.73 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Nov 2014 09:49:34 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 17:49:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: libstdc++ new deque failures From: Jonathan Wakely To: David Edelsohn Cc: Jonathan Wakely , GCC Patches , "libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-SW-Source: 2014-11/txt/msg00347.txt.bz2 On 5 November 2014 14:14, David Edelsohn wrote: > Jonathan, > > I still am seeing new failures in the libstdc++ deque testsuite as of > last night. I don't know if you still are working through the fallout > from the earlier patches, but I wanted to make you aware. Yes, those tests are meant to fail but I need to adjust the dg-error line numbers after one of my earlier patches. I'm working on a patch (I might make other changes to std::deque, which would require changing the dg-error line numbers yet agan, so I'm holding off until the other changes are ready ... or I decide not to make them and just fix the tests.) Sorry for the noise in the testresults. > > > And these are not related to deque, but appear to be additional issues > in the libstdc++ implementation: I hadn't seen these ones, I'll take a look, thanks.