From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18063 invoked by alias); 6 Jul 2005 14:22:42 -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 18043 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Jul 2005 14:22:39 -0000 Received: from mx-out.tiscali.fr (HELO mail.libertysurf.net) (213.36.80.91) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Wed, 06 Jul 2005 14:22:39 +0000 Received: from dyn-83-153-243-176.ppp.tiscali.fr (83.153.243.176) by mail.libertysurf.net (7.1.026) id 42A31B40005EEC23; Wed, 6 Jul 2005 16:22:37 +0200 From: Eric Botcazou To: Paolo Carlini Subject: Re: sparc-linux results for 4.0.1 RC3 Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 14:22:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Christian Joensson , Mark Mitchell References: <5460e3330507060638380aac4c@mail.gmail.com> <200507061603.20147.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> <42CBE6C0.604@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <42CBE6C0.604@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200507061623.45478.ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr> X-SW-Source: 2005-07/txt/msg00235.txt.bz2 > Yes, I would definitely encourage a little more analysis. I'm rather > puzzled. We have got very nice testsuites on sparc-solaris and on > *-linux, in general, and those failures certainly are not expected. Is the FAIL: abi_check failure expected? Should config/abi/sparc-linux-gnu/baseline_symbols.txt be somehow updated? > However, missing additional details, it's very difficult to guess: can > be almost anything, from a weirdness in the installed localedata to a > defect of the testsuite harness, to a code generation bug, to a latent > bug in the generic code of the library exposed only by that target, and > only now. Agreed, but were these tests simply run with the 4.0.0 testsuite? -- Eric Botcazou