From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28732 invoked by alias); 18 Sep 2004 23:19:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 28714 invoked from network); 18 Sep 2004 23:19:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO caip.rutgers.edu) (128.6.236.10) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 18 Sep 2004 23:19:10 -0000 Received: from caip.rutgers.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by caip.rutgers.edu (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i8INJ9j6007035; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 19:19:09 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from ghazi@localhost) by caip.rutgers.edu (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id i8INJ9ck007034; Sat, 18 Sep 2004 19:19:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 00:39:00 -0000 From: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" Message-Id: <200409182319.i8INJ9ck007034@caip.rutgers.edu> To: ehrhardt@mathematik.uni-ulm.de Subject: Re: Spurious testsuite failures on multi-cpu sparc-solaris2.9 Cc: dank@kegel.com, ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr, gcc@gcc.gnu.org References: <200409080128.i881S0eU004790@caip.rutgers.edu> <20040908081204.10193.qmail@thales.mathematik.uni-ulm.de> X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg01120.txt.bz2 > On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 09:28:00PM -0400, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: > > I'm trying to test GCC on a 4 cpu sparc-sun-solaris2.9 box using > > expect-5.42.1, tcl8.4.7 and dejagnu-1.4.4. I'm getting lots of > > spurious testsuite failures probably related to the solaris > > kernel bug mentioned here: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-04/msg01480.html > > > > Does any one know if bug 4927647 is addressed in any patch from Sun > > yet? > > According to SUN a fix has been integrated into Sol10 and a patch for > Sol9 will be release RSN. We were provided with a T-patch (raw > binaries not an officially released patch) in response to my bug > report. I'm curious about whether this patch will be part of the "recommended" bundle, and thus available to those without a sunsolve account. It'll likely be part of the "recommended" set if the fix is located in files already in that bundle. Are you able to figure that out? (Or simply list the files and I'll try and determine it.) At one point I worked for a company who received a "T" patch and I was able to coax sun into releasing an official patch sooner. I did this at the time because I felt that the more people using the code (more than just me!), the more likely it didn't have some other horrible problem. :-) Do you think you could prod sun into releasing this officially more quickly? I know that I personally would be able to be more productive if I could run the testsuite in parallel and post results more quickly. > > Is the expect patch mentioned here helpful at all? > > http://kegel.com/crosstool/current/patches/expect-5.39/pr12096.patch > > It didn't fix things for me, but it doesn't hurt either. > regards Christian That patch didn't fix the problem for me either. Thanks, --Kaveh -- Kaveh R. Ghazi ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu