From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18724 invoked by alias); 27 Sep 2018 10:14:56 -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 18715 invoked by uid 89); 27 Sep 2018 10:14:56 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_NUMSUBJECT,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=cook X-HELO: mx1.suse.de Received: from mx2.suse.de (HELO mx1.suse.de) (195.135.220.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 10:14:54 +0000 Received: from relay1.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C00D9AC11; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 10:14:52 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR86957 To: Richard Biener , indu.bhagat@oracle.com Cc: Martin Sebor , GCC Patches References: <6a2ea403-22c3-91f6-f826-29e186f21b91@suse.cz> <159a29c5-8f8b-4194-dbea-1c9bd414db3a@oracle.com> <7ed25f0a-10a8-3eca-c032-29e76054bfb6@suse.cz> <20180917105249.GA49438@kam.mff.cuni.cz> <15203968-8ae2-9da8-0c14-83ed1ebbb907@gmail.com> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Martin_Li=c5=a1ka?= Message-ID: Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 10:15:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-09/txt/msg01640.txt.bz2 On 9/27/18 11:47 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 9:14 PM Indu Bhagat wrote: >> >> Done. Attached is updated patch. >> >> Patch is tested on x86_64 > > You obviously did _not_ properly test the patch since it causes a > bunch of new testsuite > failures: > > FAIL: g++.dg/pr60518.C -std=gnu++11 (test for excess errors) > FAIL: g++.dg/pr60518.C -std=gnu++14 (test for excess errors) > FAIL: g++.dg/pr60518.C -std=gnu++98 (test for excess errors) > FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/dom-invalid.C -std=gnu++11 (test for excess errors) > FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/dom-invalid.C -std=gnu++14 (test for excess errors) > FAIL: g++.dg/tree-ssa/dom-invalid.C -std=gnu++98 (test for excess errors) > FAIL: g++.dg/guality/pr55665.C -O2 -flto -fno-use-linker-plugin > -flto-partition=none line 23 p == 40 > FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr59265.C -O0 (test for excess errors) > FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr59265.C -O1 (test for excess errors) > FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr59265.C -O2 (test for excess errors) > FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr59265.C -O2 -flto -fno-use-linker-plugin > -flto-partition=none (test for excess errors) > FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr59265.C -O2 -flto -fuse-linker-plugin > -fno-fat-lto-objects (test for excess errors) > FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr59265.C -O3 -g (test for excess errors) > FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr59265.C -Os (test for excess errors) > FAIL: g++.dg/tree-prof/morefunc.C compilation, -fprofile-use -D_PROFILE_USE > UNRESOLVED: g++.dg/tree-prof/morefunc.C execution, -fprofile-use > -D_PROFILE_USE > > and more. Please get up to speed with GCC development and testing requirements! > > Richard. I'll cook patch for it in order to remove the failures as soon as possible. Martin > >> Thanks >> >> >> On 09/24/2018 09:37 AM, Martin Sebor wrote: >>> I would suggest to use the term "remove" or "delete" instead of >>> the informal "wipe out" when referring to removing files or their >>> contents. >>> >>> Martin >>