GCC 4.6.0 release candidate is now available

GCC 4.6.0 release candidate is now available

[Jakub Jelinek]

A GCC 4.6.0 release candidate is available at:

ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.6.0-RC-20110314/

Please test the tarballs and report any problems to Bugzilla.
CC me on the bugs if you believe they are regressions from
previous releases severe enough to block the 4.6.0 release.

	Jakub

Second GCC 4.6.0 release candidate is now available

[Jakub Jelinek]

A second GCC 4.6.0 release candidate is available at:

ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.6.0-RC-20110321/

Please test the tarballs and report any problems to Bugzilla.
CC me on the bugs if you believe they are regressions from
previous releases severe enough to block the 4.6.0 release.

If no more blockers appear I'd like to release GCC 4.6.0
early next week.

	Jakub

Re: Second GCC 4.6.0 release candidate is now available

[Michael Hope]

On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
> A second GCC 4.6.0 release candidate is available at:
>
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.6.0-RC-20110321/
>
> Please test the tarballs and report any problems to Bugzilla.
> CC me on the bugs if you believe they are regressions from
> previous releases severe enough to block the 4.6.0 release.
>
> If no more blockers appear I'd like to release GCC 4.6.0
> early next week.

The RC bootstraps C, C++, Fortran, Obj-C, and Obj-C++ on
ARMv7/Cortex-A9/Thumb-2/NEON, ARMv5T/ARM/softfp, ARMv5T/Thumb/softfp,
and ARMv4T/ARM/softfp.  I'm afraid I haven't reviewed the test results
(Richard? Ramana?)

See:
 http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-03/msg02298.html
 http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-03/msg02391.html
 http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-03/msg02394.html
 http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-03/msg02393.html

and:
 http://builds.linaro.org/toolchain/gcc-4.6.0-RC-20110321/logs/

-- Michael

Re: Second GCC 4.6.0 release candidate is now available

[Ramana Radhakrishnan]

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.

These failures here

For v7-a , A9 and Neon - these failures below:

> Running target unix
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_11.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer  (test for excess errors)
> UNRESOLVED: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_11.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer  compilation failed to produce executable
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_11.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops  (test for excess errors)
> UNRESOLVED: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_11.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops  compilation failed to produce executable
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_11.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-all-loops -finline-functions  (test for excess errors)
> UNRESOLVED: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_11.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-all-loops -finline-functions  compilation failed to produce executable
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_11.f90  -O3 -g  (test for excess errors)
> UNRESOLVED: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_11.f90  -O3 -g  compilation failed to produce executable
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/func_assign_3.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer  (test for excess errors)
> UNRESOLVED: gfortran.dg/func_assign_3.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer  compilation failed to produce executable
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/func_assign_3.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops  (test for excess errors)
> UNRESOLVED: gfortran.dg/func_assign_3.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops  compilation failed to produce executable
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/func_assign_3.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-all-loops -finline-functions  (test for excess errors)
> UNRESOLVED: gfortran.dg/func_assign_3.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-all-loops -finline-functions  compilation failed to produce executable
> FAIL: gfortran.dg/func_assign_3.f90  -O3 -g  (test for excess errors)
> UNRESOLVED: gfortran.dg/func_assign_3.f90  -O3 -g  compilation failed to produce executable


are caused by a broken assembler. All these tests appear to pass
fine in a cross environment on my machine.

These all appear to fail because of the assembler failing to
assemble something like vmov.i64 d9,#-4294967296 which is
vmov.i64 d9,0xffffffff00000000 and a valid instruction.

I think your assembler needs an update

Otherwise the testresults for A9 appear to be largely in line
with other results.

From v5t.

> FAIL: gcc.dg/c90-intconst-1.c (internal compiler error)
> FAIL: gcc.dg/c90-intconst-1.c (test for excess errors)

The c90 testfails in your v5t run appear to be some kind of NFS glitch
because the compiler fails to spawn from dejagnu. I tried logging into
ursa2 and tried out the same test after fettling with paths etc and it
just seemed to work.

I'm still looking through the other results but I haven't spotted
anything obvious broken yet.


cheers
Ramana









On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Michael Hope <michael.hope@linaro.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> wrote:
>> A second GCC 4.6.0 release candidate is available at:
>>
>> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.6.0-RC-20110321/
>>
>> Please test the tarballs and report any problems to Bugzilla.
>> CC me on the bugs if you believe they are regressions from
>> previous releases severe enough to block the 4.6.0 release.
>>
>> If no more blockers appear I'd like to release GCC 4.6.0
>> early next week.
>
> The RC bootstraps C, C++, Fortran, Obj-C, and Obj-C++ on
> ARMv7/Cortex-A9/Thumb-2/NEON, ARMv5T/ARM/softfp, ARMv5T/Thumb/softfp,
> and ARMv4T/ARM/softfp.  I'm afraid I haven't reviewed the test results
> (Richard? Ramana?)
>
> See:
>  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-03/msg02298.html
>  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-03/msg02391.html
>  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-03/msg02394.html
>  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-03/msg02393.html
>
> and:
>  http://builds.linaro.org/toolchain/gcc-4.6.0-RC-20110321/logs/
>
> -- Michael
>

Re: Second GCC 4.6.0 release candidate is now available

[Joe Buck]

On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 03:12:14PM -0700, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> A second GCC 4.6.0 release candidate is available at:
> 
> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.6.0-RC-20110321/
> 
> Please test the tarballs and report any problems to Bugzilla.
> CC me on the bugs if you believe they are regressions from
> previous releases severe enough to block the 4.6.0 release.

See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-03/msg02463.html .

There's an ICE for gcc.c-torture/compile/limits-exprparen.c
which might be an issue.  I think that the others may be due
to the ancient version of glibc on RHEL 4 systems, though I
haven't confirmed this.

Re: Second GCC 4.6.0 release candidate is now available

[Jakub Jelinek]

On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 10:28:33AM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 03:12:14PM -0700, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > A second GCC 4.6.0 release candidate is available at:
> > 
> > ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.6.0-RC-20110321/
> > 
> > Please test the tarballs and report any problems to Bugzilla.
> > CC me on the bugs if you believe they are regressions from
> > previous releases severe enough to block the 4.6.0 release.
> 
> See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-03/msg02463.html .
> 
> There's an ICE for gcc.c-torture/compile/limits-exprparen.c
> which might be an issue.  I think that the others may be due

limits-exprparen.c is http://gcc.gnu.org/PR31827, certainly not a recent
regression that should block 4.6.0 release and probably nothing
you will encounter in real-world testcases, furthermore
for many hosts there is a workaround, just increase ulimit -s limit.

	Jakub

Re: Second GCC 4.6.0 release candidate is now available

[Nicola Pero]

> 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

Re: Second GCC 4.6.0 release candidate is now available

[Michael Hope]

On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 4:16 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan
<ramana.gcc@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
> These failures here
>
> For v7-a , A9 and Neon - these failures below:
>
>> Running target unix
>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_11.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer  (test for excess errors)
>> UNRESOLVED: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_11.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer  compilation failed to produce executable
>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_11.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops  (test for excess errors)
>> UNRESOLVED: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_11.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops  compilation failed to produce executable
>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_11.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-all-loops -finline-functions  (test for excess errors)
>> UNRESOLVED: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_11.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-all-loops -finline-functions  compilation failed to produce executable
>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_11.f90  -O3 -g  (test for excess errors)
>> UNRESOLVED: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_11.f90  -O3 -g  compilation failed to produce executable
>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/func_assign_3.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer  (test for excess errors)
>> UNRESOLVED: gfortran.dg/func_assign_3.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer  compilation failed to produce executable
>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/func_assign_3.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops  (test for excess errors)
>> UNRESOLVED: gfortran.dg/func_assign_3.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops  compilation failed to produce executable
>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/func_assign_3.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-all-loops -finline-functions  (test for excess errors)
>> UNRESOLVED: gfortran.dg/func_assign_3.f90  -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-all-loops -finline-functions  compilation failed to produce executable
>> FAIL: gfortran.dg/func_assign_3.f90  -O3 -g  (test for excess errors)
>> UNRESOLVED: gfortran.dg/func_assign_3.f90  -O3 -g  compilation failed to produce executable
> are caused by a broken assembler. All these tests appear to pass
> fine in a cross environment on my machine.

I've updated to binutils 2.21.51 which should fix the fault.  I'm
re-running the Cortex-A9 build against the 4.6.0 release now.

> From v5t.
>
>> FAIL: gcc.dg/c90-intconst-1.c (internal compiler error)
>> FAIL: gcc.dg/c90-intconst-1.c (test for excess errors)

I re-ran this against the 4.6.0 release and these fails went away. Good.
  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-04/msg00319.html

-- Michael