From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3901 invoked by alias); 25 Mar 2011 17:53:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 3892 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Mar 2011 17:53:58 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp190.iad.emailsrvr.com (HELO smtp190.iad.emailsrvr.com) (207.97.245.190) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 17:53:53 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp49.relay.iad1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 7FEA6190669; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 13:53:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from dynamic6.wm-web.iad.mlsrvr.com (dynamic6.wm-web.iad1a.rsapps.net [192.168.2.147]) by smtp49.relay.iad1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 62CE11903A2; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 13:53:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: from meta-innovation.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dynamic6.wm-web.iad.mlsrvr.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F6978B8001; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 13:53:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: by www2.webmail.us (Authenticated sender: nicola.pero@meta-innovation.com, from: nicola.pero@meta-innovation.com) with HTTP; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 18:53:52 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 18:03:00 -0000 Subject: Re: Second GCC 4.6.0 release candidate is now available From: "Nicola Pero" To: "Ramana Radhakrishnan" Cc: "Michael Hope" , "Jakub Jelinek" , gcc@gcc.gnu.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Type: plain In-Reply-To: References: <20110314172228.GO30899@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com> <20110321221214.GB11563@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> Message-ID: <1301075632.321822606@192.168.4.58> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-03/txt/msg00411.txt.bz2 > Hi Michael, > > Thanks for running these. I spent some time this morning looking > through the results, they largely look ok though I don't have much > perspective on the the objc/ obj-c++ failures. I had a quick look at the test results for 4.6.0 under Michael's name on the mailing list. The ObjC failures FAIL: objc.dg-struct-layout-encoding-1/t025_main.m execution test FAIL: objc.dg-struct-layout-encoding-1/t027_main.m execution test FAIL: objc.dg-struct-layout-encoding-1/t028_main.m execution test FAIL: objc.dg-struct-layout-encoding-1/t029_main.m execution test FAIL: objc.dg-struct-layout-encoding-1/t030_main.m execution test FAIL: objc.dg-struct-layout-encoding-1/t031_main.m execution test are not worrying. These fail on many platforms (where they are marked as xfails). But, in http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-03/msg02391.html a number of ObjC PCH failures are reported; but then lots of PCH tests in the same report fail for C too, so it doesn't seem to be anything specific to ObjC. So, as far as I can see, ObjC/ObjC++ looks good. :-) Thanks