* new test will hang 'make check-g77' @ 1998-03-10 22:15 Robert Lipe 1998-03-11 9:04 ` Dave Love 1998-03-11 9:39 ` Craig Burley 0 siblings, 2 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Robert Lipe @ 1998-03-10 22:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: egcs This isn't going to be popular, but it should be motivational. :-) The new testcase g77.f-torture/execute/980310-5.f will hang forever when compiled with -O2 or higher, as a 'make check' will do by default. It will consume mass quantities of clock cycles and generally screw up your automated build and test processes. I have verified this behaviour on the current egcs on i586-pc-sco3.2v5.0.4, but the original report was under Linux. If this causes enough grief during testing and is deemed benign enough by the wizards, perhaps we can set it to xfail as we did for the recent 961203 tests. robert "i don't write 'em, I just paste 'em" l ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: new test will hang 'make check-g77' 1998-03-10 22:15 new test will hang 'make check-g77' Robert Lipe @ 1998-03-11 9:04 ` Dave Love 1998-03-11 12:08 ` Robert Lipe 1998-03-11 9:39 ` Craig Burley 1 sibling, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Dave Love @ 1998-03-11 9:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: egcs >>>>> "Robert" == Robert Lipe <robertl@dgii.com> writes: Robert> This isn't going to be popular, but it should be motivational. :-) Robert> The new testcase Robert> g77.f-torture/execute/980310-5.f Robert> will hang forever when compiled with -O2 or higher, as a Robert> 'make check' will do by default. The code is bogus, and I'd been meaning to track down and withdraw my unfortunate forwarding of it on a bad day after Craig examined it properly. It's just a case of the classic numerical problems exposed by use of x86 FP registers (-ffloat-store is your friend, to some extent). Sorry for confusion, and thanks for digging these things out. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: new test will hang 'make check-g77' 1998-03-11 9:04 ` Dave Love @ 1998-03-11 12:08 ` Robert Lipe 1998-03-11 15:53 ` Dave Love 0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Robert Lipe @ 1998-03-11 12:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave Love, egcs Dave Love wrote: > >>>>> "Robert" == Robert Lipe <robertl@dgii.com> writes: > > Robert> The new testcase g77.f-torture/execute/980310-5.f will hang > Robert> forever when compiled with -O2 or higher, as a > > The code is bogus, The generated x86 code is bogus or the input (the fortran source) is bogus? > and I'd been meaning to track down and withdraw my > unfortunate forwarding of it on a bad day after Craig examined it > properly. It's just a case of the classic numerical problems exposed Since your name appears on the submission and you and Craig are the Fortran experts I recognize, if you agree it's bogus source, let me know and I'll pull the test case. > Sorry for confusion, and thanks for digging these things out. Actually, this is exactly what I hope to accomplish in this exercise. If I can reduce the 3000 messages into about 200 testcases that I can't dismiss as completely bogus and our respective experts can only have to look at 200 (probably to dismiss 150 ;-) we'll harvest 50 good testcases if we're lucky and hopefully not burn a lot of "expert-time" in the process. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: new test will hang 'make check-g77' 1998-03-11 12:08 ` Robert Lipe @ 1998-03-11 15:53 ` Dave Love 1998-03-11 15:53 ` Robert Lipe 0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Dave Love @ 1998-03-11 15:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Robert Lipe; +Cc: egcs [Is Kate H no longer maintainer for the Fortran tests?] >>>>> "Robert" == Robert Lipe <robertl@dgii.com> writes: >> The code is bogus, Robert> The generated x86 code is bogus or the input (the fortran Robert> source) is bogus? The source. Robert> Since your name appears on the submission and you and Craig Robert> are the Fortran experts I recognize, if you agree it's bogus Robert> source, let me know and I'll pull the test case. It should go. I presume you don't need Craig's analysis; it's pretty much wrong by inspection with a -ffloat-store clue. I had a quick look at the others. 971014-1.f and 980301-2.f are clearly the same case, but the latter has more info. It's not something I ever remember seeing. Is it known what change fixed it? (From chasing things in the past, I think this info should be recorded with tests, even if something else could break them later.) Please remove my commentary from 980310-1.f as it got my wrist slapped and note that the relevant change is Thu Dec 4 06:34:40 1997 Richard Kenner <kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> * stmt.c (pushcase_range): Clean up handling of "infinite" values. 980310-3.f and 980310-4.f are the same bug AFAICT, showing up with prerelease g77-0.5.22 -fPIC -O0 on x86 redhat 4.2 like: /tmp/cca11130.s: Assembler messages: /tmp/cca11130.s:238: Error: operands given don't match any known 386 instruction leal .LC0@GOTOFF(%ebx),-864(%ebp) This is fixed in the 980302 snapshot. If anyone knows by what, it might be helpful for the g77 release. (I should know, but I can't remember/find the info; I suspect it was Schmidt-ten.) 980310-6.f and 980310-6.f are the same thing, probably also cured by the Kenner change above, but I don't think I've seen it reported and I'm not sure. It would probably be worth a M-x delete-matching-lines ^c on well-commented (!) large examples to save some space. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: new test will hang 'make check-g77' 1998-03-11 15:53 ` Dave Love @ 1998-03-11 15:53 ` Robert Lipe 1998-03-12 8:07 ` Craig Burley 1998-03-12 12:44 ` new test will hang 'make check-g77' Dave Love 0 siblings, 2 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Robert Lipe @ 1998-03-11 15:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave Love; +Cc: egcs > [Is Kate H no longer maintainer for the Fortran tests?] I don't know. I'm not planning to maintain anything - I'm just kicking in some help. > Robert> source, let me know and I'll pull the test case. > > It should go. I presume you don't need Craig's analysis; it's pretty It's gone. > I had a quick look at the others. > > 971014-1.f and 980301-2.f are clearly the same case, but the latter > has more info. It's not something I ever remember seeing. Is it Good catch. Since 971014 has been there for some time and isn't on the list of things known to fail, something must have fixed it. IMO, you can vote which one stays and which one goes. You can even make the changes yourself if you like. > known what change fixed it? (From chasing things in the past, I think > this info should be recorded with tests, even if something else could > break them later.) This is why I'm leaning toward the liberal inclusion of testcase information in the cases themselves. I haven't been that liberal with everything, trying to strike a balance between volume and completeness. > Please remove my commentary from 980310-1.f as it got my wrist slapped Done. > and note that the relevant change is > > Thu Dec 4 06:34:40 1997 Richard Kenner <kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> > > * stmt.c (pushcase_range): Clean up handling of "infinite" values. It failed on egcs 1.0.1 when I tried it last night. Aaah. I see the fix in 1.0.2. > 980310-3.f and 980310-4.f are the same bug AFAICT, showing up with > prerelease g77-0.5.22 -fPIC -O0 on x86 redhat 4.2 like: > > /tmp/cca11130.s: Assembler messages: > /tmp/cca11130.s:238: Error: operands given don't match any known 386 instruction > > leal .LC0@GOTOFF(%ebx),-864(%ebp) Does anyone know how we can make those tests run with '-fPIC -O' so they'll show up as a failure? Dave, you get the vote which of those tests we keep. > This is fixed in the 980302 snapshot. If anyone knows by what, it > might be helpful for the g77 release. (I should know, but I can't > remember/find the info; I suspect it was Schmidt-ten.) I think it was this fix: Mon Jan 19 21:57:00 1998 Richard Henderson <rth@cygnus.com> * i386.md (push): Prohibit symbolic constants if flag_pic. (movsi+1): Likewise for move to non-register. If you decide that either or both of these tests stay, one of us can blow this reference into the testcases if you like. > 980310-6.f and 980310-6.f are the same thing, probably also cured by > the Kenner change above, but I don't think I've seen it reported > and I'm not sure. That's the same file twice. Presumably you mean *-6.f and *-8.f. I'll let you pick which stays. > It would probably be worth a > M-x delete-matching-lines ^c > on well-commented (!) large examples to save some space. I hate to admit this in this crowd, but I don't do emacs. Are you saying that the value of the space is greater than the value of the comments? If so, I can swing back the other way and not retain sender information, etc. Thanx for the help. -- Robert Lipe http://www.dgii.com/people/robertl robertl@dgii.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: new test will hang 'make check-g77' 1998-03-11 15:53 ` Robert Lipe @ 1998-03-12 8:07 ` Craig Burley 1998-03-12 11:34 ` Dave Love 1998-03-12 12:44 ` new test will hang 'make check-g77' Dave Love 1 sibling, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Craig Burley @ 1998-03-12 8:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: egcs >This is why I'm leaning toward the liberal inclusion of testcase >information in the cases themselves. I haven't been that liberal with >everything, trying to strike a balance between volume and completeness. Note that I started doing this myself, a few years back, for g77 tests. Better to include the entire original email, plus annotations, as comments to the source code than to try and cobble together some kind of system to track such info separately (especially when such a system involves use of pencil and paper, in my office, where paper has a poor track record for keeping itself organized ;-). When I start submitting some of the g77 tests I've been accumulating, I might try to cull out a bit of the redundant info, but will also try and add more definitive commentary of my own. BTW, I've been assuming I should submit these to Jeff Law for actual installation via CVS, but, perhaps, Robert Lipe, you'd be willing to do this -- especially since that'd give you a direct opportunity to once-over my submissions to help avoid duplication? Even if I had my own CVS access, that might be good, but let me know if that seems okay. tq vm, (burley) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: new test will hang 'make check-g77' 1998-03-12 8:07 ` Craig Burley @ 1998-03-12 11:34 ` Dave Love 1998-03-12 14:50 ` Toon Moene 0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Dave Love @ 1998-03-12 11:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: egcs >>>>> "Craig" == Craig Burley <burley@gnu.org> writes: Craig> Better to include the entire original email, plus annotations, I'll defer to that. Craig> BTW, I've been assuming I should submit these to Jeff Law for Craig> actual installation via CVS, but, perhaps, Robert Lipe, you'd Craig> be willing to do this Wouldn't it be a better use of resources if I or Toon did this, since we're likely familiar with the bugs, and have Robert's time & expertise devoted to something else (not that I particularly need work and am obviously grateful for it being done one way or another)? Or is it actually better if someone else does it? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: new test will hang 'make check-g77' 1998-03-12 11:34 ` Dave Love @ 1998-03-12 14:50 ` Toon Moene 1998-03-16 20:25 ` Adding g77 test cases to egcs Craig Burley 0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Toon Moene @ 1998-03-12 14:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave Love; +Cc: egcs Craig> BTW, I've been assuming I should submit these to Jeff Law for Craig> actual installation via CVS, but, perhaps, Robert Lipe, you'd Craig> be willing to do this Well, there's the assumption that, once you have your network up, you should switch to CVS and take over the Fortran related part of committing changes ... > Wouldn't it be a better use of resources if I or Toon > did this, since we're likely familiar with the bugs, and > have Robert's time & expertise devoted to something else > (not that I particularly need work and am obviously > grateful for it being done one way or another)? Or is > it actually better if someone else does it? I certainly think that's a better use of Robert's time. However, as I can't run dejagnu on m68k-next-nextstep3, I need to do some hand-fixing of sources before I can compile them. And, on another thread: Robert> I hate to admit this in this crowd, but I don't do emacs. > At least you recognise it :-) Dave probably knows how to get out of it (control-z, kill %1 doesn't work over here). Cheers, Toon. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Adding g77 test cases to egcs 1998-03-12 14:50 ` Toon Moene @ 1998-03-16 20:25 ` Craig Burley 0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Craig Burley @ 1998-03-16 20:25 UTC (permalink / raw) To: egcs > Craig> BTW, I've been assuming I should submit these to Jeff Law for > Craig> actual installation via CVS, but, perhaps, Robert Lipe, you'd > Craig> be willing to do this > >Well, there's the assumption that, once you have your network up, >you should switch to CVS and take over the Fortran related part of >committing changes ... Yes, I look forward to that day. I do have my LAN set up, but I'm chicken about undertaking the whole new-ISP/PPP/cvs thing, given how many other projects are still half-done or not-quite- working (remember how long ago I was supposed to have a working Alpha for g77 development? one's sitting next to me, taken apart, awaiting more info on how to configure the SCSI card to see if that'll fix problems ;-). So, I'd like to "clear the decks" as much as possible before upgrading my Internet access sufficiently to use CVS, have reliable and speedy email/USENET access, and so on. Since that process might render my Pentium, or my own brain, somewhat dysfunctional for a time, things I'd rather people *not* be waiting on from me include: - Submitting g77 test cases that I (and, in some cases, only I) have, along with the info I've developed on them - Submitting gcc-2.7.x patches g77 has been using so they can be evaluated for inclusion into egcs and gcc - Getting 0.5.22, and maybe 0.5.23 as well, out the door - Some other stuff So I want to take care of these first. >> Wouldn't it be a better use of resources if I or Toon >> did this, since we're likely familiar with the bugs, and >> have Robert's time & expertise devoted to something else >> (not that I particularly need work and am obviously >> grateful for it being done one way or another)? Or is >> it actually better if someone else does it? > >I certainly think that's a better use of Robert's time. However, >as I can't run dejagnu on m68k-next-nextstep3, I need to do some >hand-fixing of sources before I can compile them. I picked on Robert Lipe only because he showed signs of actually caring enough about g77 to review past bug reports and install test cases into egcs, which also meant he has CVS access. In other words, the squeaky grease got the wheel. ;-) Seriously, anyone who has those qualities is welcome to do my dirty work until I get my own CVS access -- I already know how dedicated Dave Love, Toon Moene, and Kate Hedstrom are to g77, so if y'all have CVS access and are willing to take some time to submit test cases that I email to you, great! Originally I was going to email them to Jeff Law, seeing as he's done such great work making egcs-with-g77 happen and installs my patches so quickly (sometimes before I finish them ;-), but if I can help reduce his load by finding one or two other people to do the CVS stuff.... What I plan to do is email these test cases to <fortran@gnu.org>, <egcs-bugs@cygnus.com>, and anyone else who wants to see them as well -- just let me know. (I assume Robert Lipe is on the egcs-bugs email list. I'm not, but probably should subscribe. In fact, I think I'll do that next. Anything to bring my spam ratio back below 50%. :) These submissions will include explicit commentary that the bug reports are old ones that are now packaged, modified as appropriate, for inclusion in a particular area of the g77 test suite, and a request for one individual (Robert, Dave, Toon, Kate...whoever volunteers, maybe I'll rotate test by test to spread the load) to actually add it. That way, even without CVS access, everyone gets to look over the test and see if they see any obvious problems or if it rings any bells in terms of past bug reports...and might help ring one or two if future bug reports come along identifying similar problems. Mainly, I'm hoping this approach reduces both duplication of work (submissions) and submission of test cases about which I already have info I haven't done a sufficient job of sharing to date. If anyone has feedback on this approach, let me know. >>>>>> "Craig" == Craig Burley <burley@gnu.org> writes: > > Craig> Better to include the entire original email, plus annotations, > >I'll defer to that. But, what do other people do with submissions from outside -- can we just assume, barring explicit copyright notices to the contrary, that turning the program and emailed info into a GPL'ed (?) test case is okay? Or should we ask permission (seems like a good idea to me anyway)? Are there guidelines to these issues somewhere I can read? > Craig> BTW, I've been assuming I should submit these to Jeff Law for > Craig> actual installation via CVS, but, perhaps, Robert Lipe, you'd > Craig> be willing to do this > >Wouldn't it be a better use of resources if I or Toon did this, since >we're likely familiar with the bugs, and have Robert's time & >expertise devoted to something else (not that I particularly need work >and am obviously grateful for it being done one way or another)? Or >is it actually better if someone else does it? I hope I've explained that above. I do like the idea of more people seeing the tests I submit, but if I had CVS access I'd just do the work, so I definitely wasn't overlooking you or Toon (or Kate!), just wasn't sure how your time and other resources fit in with things. Whoever is willing to add test cases to egcs via CVS that I submit to them for exactly that purpose, just let me know! The more the merrier, I'll just rotate appropriately until I get dizzy. tq vm, (burley) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: new test will hang 'make check-g77' 1998-03-11 15:53 ` Robert Lipe 1998-03-12 8:07 ` Craig Burley @ 1998-03-12 12:44 ` Dave Love 1 sibling, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Dave Love @ 1998-03-12 12:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: egcs >>>>> "Robert" == Robert Lipe <robertl@dgii.com> writes: Robert> That's the same file twice. Presumably you mean *-6.f and Robert> *-8.f. Yes, sorry. And I was obviously wrong about the fix, which presumably should be: Wed Feb 11 01:44:48 1998 Richard Henderson (rth@cygnus.com) * com.c (ffecom_ptr_to_expr) [FFEBLD_opARRAYREF]: Do upper - lower in the native type, so as to properly handle negative indices. Robert> I hate to admit this in this crowd, but I don't do emacs. At least you recognise it :-) Robert> Are you saying that the value of the space is greater than Robert> the value of the comments? I'd have thought so in these cases, but don't feel strongly about it. I mean the user-level Fortran comments, of course. I wouldn't include the sender info myself, but perhaps someone should make policy on that and make it clear that bug reports may end up verbatim in the testsuite if necessary. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: new test will hang 'make check-g77' 1998-03-10 22:15 new test will hang 'make check-g77' Robert Lipe 1998-03-11 9:04 ` Dave Love @ 1998-03-11 9:39 ` Craig Burley 1998-03-11 9:39 ` Robert Lipe 1 sibling, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Craig Burley @ 1998-03-11 9:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: robertl; +Cc: egcs >The new testcase > g77.f-torture/execute/980310-5.f > >will hang forever when compiled with -O2 or higher, as a 'make check' >will do by default. It will consume mass quantities of clock cycles and >generally screw up your automated build and test processes. I have >verified this behaviour on the current egcs on i586-pc-sco3.2v5.0.4, but >the original report was under Linux. Could you email me this code? I might already have a fix for it in g77 0.5.21's patches to the gcc back end, which egcs does not (currently) incorporate -- probably because it's just an optimization, maybe also because I had to issue a patch to fix a thinko in it (< ftp://alpha.gnu.org/g77.plan > has a list of such patches, including the one in question). Basically, this patch fixes the problem of "hanging" in safe_from_p(), resulting from g77 trying to compile code with a fairly complicated expression involving stuff like COMPLEX types. Also, I do plan on submitting pending g77 bugs myself as well, so, to avoid duplicating work, could you email me summaries of each bug report or test case you're working on adding to the data base? (Note that your doing this instead of me amounts to a *huge* potential improvement in my own productivity right now, as I've got lots of things on my plate that have been suffering lately; adding g77 test cases to the egcs suite is quite important, IMO, so whatever you can't get to yourself, I do want to make time to do.) tq vm, (burley) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: new test will hang 'make check-g77' 1998-03-11 9:39 ` Craig Burley @ 1998-03-11 9:39 ` Robert Lipe 1998-03-11 15:53 ` Craig Burley 1998-03-11 17:54 ` Joe Buck 0 siblings, 2 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Robert Lipe @ 1998-03-11 9:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Craig Burley; +Cc: egcs > >The new testcase > > g77.f-torture/execute/980310-5.f > > > >will hang forever when compiled with -O2 or higher, as a 'make check' > > Could you email me this code? I might already have a fix for I will. If you have cvs access, you can just do a 'cvs update' and see the file. > Also, I do plan on submitting pending g77 bugs myself as well, > so, to avoid duplicating work, could you email me summaries of > each bug report or test case you're working on adding to the > data base? (Note that your doing this instead of me amounts Basically I've been picking through the egcs-bugs archives. There haven't been a whole lot of fortran cases. If you're not CVS enabled, I'll send you the 8 or 9 I committed yesterday. > now, as I've got lots of things on my plate that have been > suffering lately; adding g77 test cases to the egcs suite is > quite important, IMO, so whatever you can't get to yourself, I > do want to make time to do.) Thanx for the help. RJL ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: new test will hang 'make check-g77' 1998-03-11 9:39 ` Robert Lipe @ 1998-03-11 15:53 ` Craig Burley 1998-03-11 12:08 ` Robert Lipe 1998-03-11 17:54 ` Joe Buck 1 sibling, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread From: Craig Burley @ 1998-03-11 15:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: robertl; +Cc: egcs >I will. If you have cvs access, you can just do a 'cvs update' and >see the file. No CVS access (yet). Thanks! >> Also, I do plan on submitting pending g77 bugs myself as well, >> so, to avoid duplicating work, could you email me summaries of >> each bug report or test case you're working on adding to the >> data base? (Note that your doing this instead of me amounts > >Basically I've been picking through the egcs-bugs archives. There >haven't been a whole lot of fortran cases. If you're not CVS enabled, >I'll send you the 8 or 9 I committed yesterday. Okay, I've already sent you email suggesting the case you were asking about is inappropriate (it's a user bug, not a compiler bug). Probably best to remove it from the test suite, as it doesn't really illustrate anything particularly useful (although it might be nice to have a subdirectory called "userbugs" for known user bugs that have behaviors like "-fno-caller-saves makes the problem go away" ;-). >> now, as I've got lots of things on my plate that have been >> suffering lately; adding g77 test cases to the egcs suite is >> quite important, IMO, so whatever you can't get to yourself, I >> do want to make time to do.) > >Thanx for the help. Ditto!! tq vm, (burley) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: new test will hang 'make check-g77' 1998-03-11 15:53 ` Craig Burley @ 1998-03-11 12:08 ` Robert Lipe 0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Robert Lipe @ 1998-03-11 12:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: egcs; +Cc: egcs Re: 980310-5.f > Okay, I've already sent you email suggesting the case you were > asking about is inappropriate (it's a user bug, not a compiler > bug). Probably best to remove it from the test suite, as it Done! Thanks to you and Dave Love for your help on this. -- Robert Lipe http://www.dgii.com/people/robertl robertl@dgii.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: new test will hang 'make check-g77' 1998-03-11 9:39 ` Robert Lipe 1998-03-11 15:53 ` Craig Burley @ 1998-03-11 17:54 ` Joe Buck 1 sibling, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread From: Joe Buck @ 1998-03-11 17:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Robert Lipe; +Cc: burley, egcs > > Could you email me this code? I might already have a fix for > > I will. If you have cvs access, you can just do a 'cvs update' and > see the file. Note that folks without CVS access can use the Web interface to grab the very latest version of some file, see changes between any two versions, etc. Try http://egcs.cygnus.com/cgi-bin/cvsweb/ . I just tried it to find out what Robert Lipe got his wrist slapped for (980310-1.f). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1998-03-16 20:25 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 15+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 1998-03-10 22:15 new test will hang 'make check-g77' Robert Lipe 1998-03-11 9:04 ` Dave Love 1998-03-11 12:08 ` Robert Lipe 1998-03-11 15:53 ` Dave Love 1998-03-11 15:53 ` Robert Lipe 1998-03-12 8:07 ` Craig Burley 1998-03-12 11:34 ` Dave Love 1998-03-12 14:50 ` Toon Moene 1998-03-16 20:25 ` Adding g77 test cases to egcs Craig Burley 1998-03-12 12:44 ` new test will hang 'make check-g77' Dave Love 1998-03-11 9:39 ` Craig Burley 1998-03-11 9:39 ` Robert Lipe 1998-03-11 15:53 ` Craig Burley 1998-03-11 12:08 ` Robert Lipe 1998-03-11 17:54 ` Joe Buck
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).