From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12725 invoked by alias); 5 Sep 2002 02:05:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 12695 invoked by uid 61); 5 Sep 2002 02:05:39 -0000 Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 19:05:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20020905020539.12694.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: David.Billinghurst@riotinto.com, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, gdr@integrable-solutions.net, ljrittle@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org From: ljrittle@gcc.gnu.org Reply-To: ljrittle@gcc.gnu.org, David.Billinghurst@riotinto.com, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, gdr@integrable-solutions.net, ljrittle@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: libstdc++/7805: Test 18_support/numeric_limits.cc execution fails on cygwin X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00070.txt.bz2 List-Id: Synopsis: Test 18_support/numeric_limits.cc execution fails on cygwin Responsible-Changed-From-To: unassigned->ljrittle Responsible-Changed-By: ljrittle Responsible-Changed-When: Wed Sep 4 19:05:39 2002 Responsible-Changed-Why: Mine. State-Changed-From-To: open->feedback State-Changed-By: ljrittle State-Changed-When: Wed Sep 4 19:05:39 2002 State-Changed-Why: Any gcc code scheduling change could affect this test on CPUs that truncates FP differently depending on where the value lives (or other related reasons). Since this is also an ix86 machine, it doesn't surprise me. Consider a patch to use the looser check specialization for your platform (as long as you can rationalize it), pre-approved. To others that complain about this test failing on your platform, David has exposed how to debug it and "silence" it properly given the testing framework in that area. http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=7805