From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Robert Lipe <robertl@dgii.com>
To: "J. Kean Johnston" <jkj@sco.com>
Cc: EGCS Mailing List <egcs@cygnus.com>
Subject: Re: i586-pc-sco3.2v5.0.4 results for 1.0.1
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 19:17:00 -0000
Message-id: <19980107211700.63294@dgii.com>
References: <19980107131755.00822@sco.com>
X-SW-Source: 1998-01/msg00174.html

> All, here are the results. The only ones which worry me are the GCC failures
> on 921215-1.c, 931002-1.c and nestfunc-1.c in ELF mode. They ONLY fail

Those would worry me, too.   They would represent a regression from
1.0.

What worries me more is that you're seeing them fail and I'm not.
I see that you got these failures on the your Jan 1 test of the 1225, 
yet when I submitted my test results on 12/27 of the 1225 snap, I 
didn't get the failure.   

You and I should compare our assembler source files.   Something is
different.

> I personally think that its great that the compiler passes ALL of the
> GCC tests in normal(ELF) and COFF mode, with only those 3 failures in PIC
> mode. I wish though, someone could explain the G++ bugs to me. The g77

I did some analysis of the problem, but haven't messed with it since.

	http://www.cygnus.com/ml/egcs/1997-Nov/0992.html


RJL