Failing G++ tests on alphaev56-dec-osf4.0c.

Failing G++ tests on alphaev56-dec-osf4.0c.

[Richard Kenner]

When I fixed the varasm problem, the only failures I get are
these:

FAIL: g++.dg/ext/align1.C (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/ext/instantiate1.C suppressing f<int> (test for errors, line )
FAIL: g++.dg/ext/instantiate1.C suppressing A<int> (test for errors, line )
FAIL: g++.dg/ext/instantiate1.C (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/special/conpr-1.C execution test
FAIL: g++.dg/special/conpr-2.C execution test
FAIL: g++.dg/special/conpr-3.C execution test
FAIL: g++.dg/special/conpr-3.C execution test
FAIL: g++.dg/special/initp1.C execution test
FAIL: g++.ext/instantiate2.C not instantiated (test for errors, line 19)
FAIL: g++.ext/instantiate3.C not instantiated (test for errors, line 13)
FAIL: g++.jason/thunk3.C (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.other/defarg9.C (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.other/enum5.C (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.pt/explicit74.C (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.pt/instantiate5.C (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.robertl/eb101.C (test for excess errors)

Looking at the logs, most of these seem to be ones that have already
been discussed and are known problems.  Are there any I need to look
at?  I also get about a half dozen loader warnings about missing strong
symbols for a sizable fraction of tests, but they don't fail.

Re: Failing G++ tests on alphaev56-dec-osf4.0c.

[Richard Henderson]

On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 06:25:06PM -0500, Richard Kenner wrote:
> I also get about a half dozen loader warnings about missing strong
> symbols for a sizable fraction of tests, but they don't fail.

Ignore these.  This is due to a difference of opinion about
how Compaq implemented weak symbols.  I really wish there 
were an easy way to get the linker to not warn about this.


r~