* End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010 @ 2010-08-31 22:55 Mark Mitchell 2010-09-05 4:23 ` NightStrike 0 siblings, 1 reply; 32+ messages in thread From: Mark Mitchell @ 2010-08-31 22:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: GCC; +Cc: Joseph S. Myers, Richard Guenther, Jakub Jelinek We (GCC RMs) plan to close GCC 4.6 Stage 1 on or or about October 27, 2010 (the closing day of the GCC Summit). Major features should be checked in prior to this point. Please let us know if you have a major feature that you think you will not be able to get checked in prior to October 27th. Thank you, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery mark@codesourcery.com (650) 331-3385 x713 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010 2010-08-31 22:55 End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010 Mark Mitchell @ 2010-09-05 4:23 ` NightStrike 2010-09-05 18:03 ` Mark Mitchell 0 siblings, 1 reply; 32+ messages in thread From: NightStrike @ 2010-09-05 4:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark Mitchell; +Cc: GCC, Joseph S. Myers, Richard Guenther, Jakub Jelinek We would like x86_64-w64-mingw32 to become a secondary target for 4.6. What has to be checked off for that to happen? I have an auto-testsuite-thinger running constantly now and posting results to the ML (it takes several days to do a full dl/build/test, so it's not daily, but it's continuous). On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> wrote: > We (GCC RMs) plan to close GCC 4.6 Stage 1 on or or about October 27, > 2010 (the closing day of the GCC Summit). Major features should be > checked in prior to this point. Please let us know if you have a major > feature that you think you will not be able to get checked in prior to > October 27th. > > Thank you, > > -- > Mark Mitchell > CodeSourcery > mark@codesourcery.com > (650) 331-3385 x713 > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010 2010-09-05 4:23 ` NightStrike @ 2010-09-05 18:03 ` Mark Mitchell 2010-09-05 18:23 ` NightStrike 0 siblings, 1 reply; 32+ messages in thread From: Mark Mitchell @ 2010-09-05 18:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: NightStrike; +Cc: GCC, Joseph S. Myers, Richard Guenther, Jakub Jelinek On 9/4/2010 9:23 PM, NightStrike wrote: > We would like x86_64-w64-mingw32 to become a secondary target for 4.6. Who is "we" in this context? > What has to be checked off for that to happen? It's not so much a matter of "checking off". It's a combination of the SC's perception of the importance of the target and the technical stats of the port. I can raise the issue with the SC, if you like, but, personally, I'm not sure that 64-bit Windows is significant enough as a target platform for GCC to merit that status. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery mark@codesourcery.com (650) 331-3385 x713 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010 2010-09-05 18:03 ` Mark Mitchell @ 2010-09-05 18:23 ` NightStrike 2010-09-05 18:29 ` Mark Mitchell 0 siblings, 1 reply; 32+ messages in thread From: NightStrike @ 2010-09-05 18:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark Mitchell; +Cc: GCC, Joseph S. Myers, Richard Guenther, Jakub Jelinek On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> wrote: > On 9/4/2010 9:23 PM, NightStrike wrote: > >> We would like x86_64-w64-mingw32 to become a secondary target for 4.6. > > Who is "we" in this context? Sorry, that would be Kai Tietz, myself, and the entire mingw-w64.sf.net project. >> What has to be checked off for that to happen? > > It's not so much a matter of "checking off". It's a combination of the > SC's perception of the importance of the target and the technical stats > of the port. I can raise the issue with the SC, if you like, but, > personally, I'm not sure that 64-bit Windows is significant enough as a > target platform for GCC to merit that status. Ouch. What criteria do you use for that analysis? I will endeavor to prove our importance :) Note that 32-bit windows is already a secondary platform. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010 2010-09-05 18:23 ` NightStrike @ 2010-09-05 18:29 ` Mark Mitchell 2010-09-05 18:35 ` NightStrike 0 siblings, 1 reply; 32+ messages in thread From: Mark Mitchell @ 2010-09-05 18:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: NightStrike; +Cc: GCC, Joseph S. Myers, Richard Guenther, Jakub Jelinek On 9/5/2010 11:23 AM, NightStrike wrote: >> It's not so much a matter of "checking off". It's a combination of the >> SC's perception of the importance of the target and the technical stats >> of the port. I can raise the issue with the SC, if you like, but, >> personally, I'm not sure that 64-bit Windows is significant enough as a >> target platform for GCC to merit that status. > > Ouch. What criteria do you use for that analysis? I can't say what criteria the SC uses; I don't know what basis other SC members use to decide. I use my own instincts (which, I admit, is not a scientific basis) for deciding. I spend much of my life talking to various stakeholders in GCC, and so I have a reasonable feel for where people are presently using GCC, and where they would like to use it. Thus far, I've certainly heard of some interest in 64-bit Windows, but nowhere near as much as 32-bit Windows or Cygwin. I certainly don't mind raising the issue, if you want me to do that; I'm happy to carry messages to the SC independent of my own opinions. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery mark@codesourcery.com (650) 331-3385 x713 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010 2010-09-05 18:29 ` Mark Mitchell @ 2010-09-05 18:35 ` NightStrike 2010-09-05 18:40 ` Mark Mitchell 2010-09-05 22:10 ` Gerald Pfeifer 0 siblings, 2 replies; 32+ messages in thread From: NightStrike @ 2010-09-05 18:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark Mitchell; +Cc: GCC, Joseph S. Myers, Richard Guenther, Jakub Jelinek On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> wrote: > On 9/5/2010 11:23 AM, NightStrike wrote: > >>> It's not so much a matter of "checking off". It's a combination of the >>> SC's perception of the importance of the target and the technical stats >>> of the port. I can raise the issue with the SC, if you like, but, >>> personally, I'm not sure that 64-bit Windows is significant enough as a >>> target platform for GCC to merit that status. >> >> Ouch. What criteria do you use for that analysis? > > I can't say what criteria the SC uses; I don't know what basis other SC > members use to decide. > > I use my own instincts (which, I admit, is not a scientific basis) for > deciding. I spend much of my life talking to various stakeholders in > GCC, and so I have a reasonable feel for where people are presently > using GCC, and where they would like to use it. Thus far, I've > certainly heard of some interest in 64-bit Windows, but nowhere near as > much as 32-bit Windows or Cygwin. > > I certainly don't mind raising the issue, if you want me to do that; I'm > happy to carry messages to the SC independent of my own opinions. Yes, definitely bring it up. I'm just trying to get more cards stacked in our favor :) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010 2010-09-05 18:35 ` NightStrike @ 2010-09-05 18:40 ` Mark Mitchell 2010-09-05 22:10 ` Gerald Pfeifer 1 sibling, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread From: Mark Mitchell @ 2010-09-05 18:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: NightStrike; +Cc: GCC, Joseph S. Myers, Richard Guenther, Jakub Jelinek On 9/5/2010 11:34 AM, NightStrike wrote: >> I certainly don't mind raising the issue, if you want me to do that; I'm >> happy to carry messages to the SC independent of my own opinions. > > Yes, definitely bring it up. I'm just trying to get more cards > stacked in our favor :) OK, I've asked the SC to consider it. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery mark@codesourcery.com (650) 331-3385 x713 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010 2010-09-05 18:35 ` NightStrike 2010-09-05 18:40 ` Mark Mitchell @ 2010-09-05 22:10 ` Gerald Pfeifer 2010-09-05 22:18 ` Tobias Burnus 1 sibling, 1 reply; 32+ messages in thread From: Gerald Pfeifer @ 2010-09-05 22:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: NightStrike Cc: Mark Mitchell, GCC, Joseph S. Myers, Richard Guenther, Jakub Jelinek [-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 457 bytes --] On Sun, 5 Sep 2010, NightStrike wrote: > Yes, definitely bring it up. I'm just trying to get more cards > stacked in our favor :) Do you have a pointer to testresults you'd like us to use for reference? From our release criteria, for secondary platforms we have: • The compiler bootstraps successfully, and the C++ runtime library builds. • The DejaGNU testsuite has been run, and a substantial majority of the tests pass. Gerald ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010 2010-09-05 22:10 ` Gerald Pfeifer @ 2010-09-05 22:18 ` Tobias Burnus 2010-09-06 9:22 ` Richard Guenther 0 siblings, 1 reply; 32+ messages in thread From: Tobias Burnus @ 2010-09-05 22:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gerald Pfeifer Cc: NightStrike, Mark Mitchell, GCC, Joseph S. Myers, Richard Guenther, Jakub Jelinek Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > Do you have a pointer to testresults you'd like us to use for reference? > > From our release criteria, for secondary platforms we have: > > • The compiler bootstraps successfully, and the C++ runtime library > builds. > • The DejaGNU testsuite has been run, and a substantial majority of the > tests pass. See for instance: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-09/msg00295.html === g++ Summary === # of expected passes 24917 # of unexpected failures 18 # of expected failures 150 # of unsupported tests 587 === gcc Summary === # of expected passes 66682 # of unexpected failures 49 # of unexpected successes 3 # of expected failures 199 # of unresolved testcases 3 # of unsupported tests 1311 === gfortran Summary === # of expected passes 35917 # of unexpected failures 36 # of expected failures 40 # of unsupported tests 101 === obj-c++ Summary === # of expected passes 489 # of unexpected failures 54 # of expected failures 3 # of unsupported tests 15 === objc Summary === # of expected passes 658 # of unexpected failures 84 # of unsupported tests 20 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010 2010-09-05 22:18 ` Tobias Burnus @ 2010-09-06 9:22 ` Richard Guenther 2010-09-06 16:19 ` NightStrike 0 siblings, 1 reply; 32+ messages in thread From: Richard Guenther @ 2010-09-06 9:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Tobias Burnus Cc: Gerald Pfeifer, NightStrike, Mark Mitchell, GCC, Joseph S. Myers, Jakub Jelinek [-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 557 bytes --] On Mon, 6 Sep 2010, Tobias Burnus wrote: > Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > > Do you have a pointer to testresults you'd like us to use for reference? > > > > From our release criteria, for secondary platforms we have: > > > > • The compiler bootstraps successfully, and the C++ runtime library > > builds. > > • The DejaGNU testsuite has been run, and a substantial majority of the > > tests pass. > > See for instance: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-09/msg00295.html There are no libstdc++ results in that. Richard. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010 2010-09-06 9:22 ` Richard Guenther @ 2010-09-06 16:19 ` NightStrike 2010-09-06 16:21 ` Richard Guenther 0 siblings, 1 reply; 32+ messages in thread From: NightStrike @ 2010-09-06 16:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Guenther Cc: Tobias Burnus, Gerald Pfeifer, Mark Mitchell, GCC, Joseph S. Myers, Jakub Jelinek On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 5:21 AM, Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de> wrote: > On Mon, 6 Sep 2010, Tobias Burnus wrote: > >> Gerald Pfeifer wrote: >> > Do you have a pointer to testresults you'd like us to use for reference? >> > >> > From our release criteria, for secondary platforms we have: >> > >> > • The compiler bootstraps successfully, and the C++ runtime library >> > builds. >> > • The DejaGNU testsuite has been run, and a substantial majority of the >> > tests pass. >> >> See for instance: >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-09/msg00295.html > > There are no libstdc++ results in that. > > Richard. This is true. I always run make check-gcc. What should I be doing instead? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010 2010-09-06 16:19 ` NightStrike @ 2010-09-06 16:21 ` Richard Guenther 2010-09-06 16:33 ` Tim Prince 2010-09-06 17:18 ` NightStrike 0 siblings, 2 replies; 32+ messages in thread From: Richard Guenther @ 2010-09-06 16:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: NightStrike Cc: Richard Guenther, Tobias Burnus, Gerald Pfeifer, Mark Mitchell, GCC, Joseph S. Myers, Jakub Jelinek On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 6:19 PM, NightStrike <nightstrike@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 5:21 AM, Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de> wrote: >> On Mon, 6 Sep 2010, Tobias Burnus wrote: >> >>> Gerald Pfeifer wrote: >>> > Do you have a pointer to testresults you'd like us to use for reference? >>> > >>> > From our release criteria, for secondary platforms we have: >>> > >>> > • The compiler bootstraps successfully, and the C++ runtime library >>> > builds. >>> > • The DejaGNU testsuite has been run, and a substantial majority of the >>> > tests pass. >>> >>> See for instance: >>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-09/msg00295.html >> >> There are no libstdc++ results in that. >> >> Richard. > > This is true. I always run make check-gcc. What should I be doing instead? make -k check ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010 2010-09-06 16:21 ` Richard Guenther @ 2010-09-06 16:33 ` Tim Prince 2010-09-06 17:18 ` NightStrike 1 sibling, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread From: Tim Prince @ 2010-09-06 16:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc On 9/6/2010 9:21 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: > On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 6:19 PM, NightStrike<nightstrike@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 5:21 AM, Richard Guenther<rguenther@suse.de> wrote: >>> On Mon, 6 Sep 2010, Tobias Burnus wrote: >>> >>>> Gerald Pfeifer wrote: >>>>> Do you have a pointer to testresults you'd like us to use for reference? >>>>> >>>>> From our release criteria, for secondary platforms we have: >>>>> >>>>> • The compiler bootstraps successfully, and the C++ runtime library >>>>> builds. >>>>> • The DejaGNU testsuite has been run, and a substantial majority of the >>>>> tests pass. >>>> See for instance: >>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-09/msg00295.html >>> There are no libstdc++ results in that. >>> >>> Richard. >> This is true. I always run make check-gcc. What should I be doing instead? > make -k check make check-c++ runs both g++ and libstdc++-v3 testsuites. -- Tim Prince ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010 2010-09-06 16:21 ` Richard Guenther 2010-09-06 16:33 ` Tim Prince @ 2010-09-06 17:18 ` NightStrike 2010-09-06 17:24 ` Andrew Haley 1 sibling, 1 reply; 32+ messages in thread From: NightStrike @ 2010-09-06 17:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Guenther Cc: Richard Guenther, Tobias Burnus, Gerald Pfeifer, Mark Mitchell, GCC, Joseph S. Myers, Jakub Jelinek On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 6:19 PM, NightStrike <nightstrike@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 5:21 AM, Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de> wrote: >>> On Mon, 6 Sep 2010, Tobias Burnus wrote: >>> >>>> Gerald Pfeifer wrote: >>>> > Do you have a pointer to testresults you'd like us to use for reference? >>>> > >>>> > From our release criteria, for secondary platforms we have: >>>> > >>>> > • The compiler bootstraps successfully, and the C++ runtime library >>>> > builds. >>>> > • The DejaGNU testsuite has been run, and a substantial majority of the >>>> > tests pass. >>>> >>>> See for instance: >>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-09/msg00295.html >>> >>> There are no libstdc++ results in that. >>> >>> Richard. >> >> This is true. I always run make check-gcc. What should I be doing instead? > > make -k check > Ugh. And I thought I was golden :) This apparently requires autogen to do something about fixincludes/check.tpl. I have no idea what that is or what that means.... I'll report back. Any insight you can provide is greatly appreciated. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010 2010-09-06 17:18 ` NightStrike @ 2010-09-06 17:24 ` Andrew Haley 2010-09-06 17:32 ` NightStrike 0 siblings, 1 reply; 32+ messages in thread From: Andrew Haley @ 2010-09-06 17:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: NightStrike Cc: Richard Guenther, Richard Guenther, Tobias Burnus, Gerald Pfeifer, Mark Mitchell, GCC, Joseph S. Myers, Jakub Jelinek On 09/06/2010 06:18 PM, NightStrike wrote: > On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Richard Guenther > <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 6:19 PM, NightStrike <nightstrike@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 5:21 AM, Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de> wrote: >>>> On Mon, 6 Sep 2010, Tobias Burnus wrote: >>>> >>>>> Gerald Pfeifer wrote: >>>>>> Do you have a pointer to testresults you'd like us to use for reference? >>>>>> >>>>>> From our release criteria, for secondary platforms we have: >>>>>> >>>>>> • The compiler bootstraps successfully, and the C++ runtime library >>>>>> builds. >>>>>> • The DejaGNU testsuite has been run, and a substantial majority of the >>>>>> tests pass. >>>>> >>>>> See for instance: >>>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-09/msg00295.html >>>> >>>> There are no libstdc++ results in that. >>>> >>>> Richard. >>> >>> This is true. I always run make check-gcc. What should I be doing instead? >> >> make -k check >> > > Ugh. And I thought I was golden :) > > This apparently requires autogen to do something about > fixincludes/check.tpl. I have no idea what that is or what that > means.... Just ignore the fixincludes test results. Andrew. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010 2010-09-06 17:24 ` Andrew Haley @ 2010-09-06 17:32 ` NightStrike 2010-09-20 23:23 ` NightStrike 0 siblings, 1 reply; 32+ messages in thread From: NightStrike @ 2010-09-06 17:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew Haley Cc: Richard Guenther, Richard Guenther, Tobias Burnus, Gerald Pfeifer, Mark Mitchell, GCC, Joseph S. Myers, Jakub Jelinek On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote: > On 09/06/2010 06:18 PM, NightStrike wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Richard Guenther >> <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 6:19 PM, NightStrike <nightstrike@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 5:21 AM, Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de> wrote: >>>>> On Mon, 6 Sep 2010, Tobias Burnus wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Gerald Pfeifer wrote: >>>>>>> Do you have a pointer to testresults you'd like us to use for reference? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From our release criteria, for secondary platforms we have: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> • The compiler bootstraps successfully, and the C++ runtime library >>>>>>> builds. >>>>>>> • The DejaGNU testsuite has been run, and a substantial majority of the >>>>>>> tests pass. >>>>>> >>>>>> See for instance: >>>>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-09/msg00295.html >>>>> >>>>> There are no libstdc++ results in that. >>>>> >>>>> Richard. >>>> >>>> This is true. I always run make check-gcc. What should I be doing instead? >>> >>> make -k check >>> >> >> Ugh. And I thought I was golden :) >> >> This apparently requires autogen to do something about >> fixincludes/check.tpl. I have no idea what that is or what that >> means.... > > Just ignore the fixincludes test results. > > Andrew. > Thanks! Life just got easier again :) Running it with -j5. Hopefully cygwin doesn't barf on that.. I know cygwin used to have issues with -j. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010 2010-09-06 17:32 ` NightStrike @ 2010-09-20 23:23 ` NightStrike 2010-09-21 10:01 ` Jonathan Wakely 0 siblings, 1 reply; 32+ messages in thread From: NightStrike @ 2010-09-20 23:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew Haley Cc: Richard Guenther, Richard Guenther, Tobias Burnus, Gerald Pfeifer, Mark Mitchell, GCC, Joseph S. Myers, Jakub Jelinek On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 1:32 PM, NightStrike <nightstrike@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Andrew Haley <aph@redhat.com> wrote: >> On 09/06/2010 06:18 PM, NightStrike wrote: >>> On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Richard Guenther >>> <richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 6:19 PM, NightStrike <nightstrike@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 5:21 AM, Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de> wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 6 Sep 2010, Tobias Burnus wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Gerald Pfeifer wrote: >>>>>>>> Do you have a pointer to testresults you'd like us to use for reference? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> From our release criteria, for secondary platforms we have: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> • The compiler bootstraps successfully, and the C++ runtime library >>>>>>>> builds. >>>>>>>> • The DejaGNU testsuite has been run, and a substantial majority of the >>>>>>>> tests pass. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> See for instance: >>>>>>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-09/msg00295.html >>>>>> >>>>>> There are no libstdc++ results in that. >>>>>> >>>>>> Richard. >>>>> >>>>> This is true. I always run make check-gcc. What should I be doing instead? >>>> >>>> make -k check >>>> >>> >>> Ugh. And I thought I was golden :) >>> >>> This apparently requires autogen to do something about >>> fixincludes/check.tpl. I have no idea what that is or what that >>> means.... >> >> Just ignore the fixincludes test results. >> >> Andrew. >> > > Thanks! Life just got easier again :) > > Running it with -j5. Hopefully cygwin doesn't barf on that.. I know > cygwin used to have issues with -j. > Ok, so it took a while to eventually find out that cygwin still malfunctions with -j, and I get lots of "fork() blows because it can't figure out how to find ubiquitous resources" errors. However, I eventually got this to finish: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-09/msg01864.html So there's a complete testsuite that includes libstdc++ this time. I will now have this running continuously. Note that you won't see results every day -- it takes a LONG time to do this, mostly because I can't do -j on cygwin. I imagine results will be every 4 days or so if I run continuously. Is this enough now for us to qualify? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010 2010-09-20 23:23 ` NightStrike @ 2010-09-21 10:01 ` Jonathan Wakely 2010-09-21 15:09 ` NightStrike 0 siblings, 1 reply; 32+ messages in thread From: Jonathan Wakely @ 2010-09-21 10:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: NightStrike Cc: Andrew Haley, Richard Guenther, Richard Guenther, Tobias Burnus, Gerald Pfeifer, Mark Mitchell, GCC, Joseph S. Myers, Jakub Jelinek On 20 September 2010 17:33, NightStrike wrote: > > Ok, so it took a while to eventually find out that cygwin still > malfunctions with -j, and I get lots of "fork() blows because it can't > figure out how to find ubiquitous resources" errors. However, I > eventually got this to finish: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-09/msg01864.html > > So there's a complete testsuite that includes libstdc++ this time. I > will now have this running continuously. > > Note that you won't see results every day -- it takes a LONG time to > do this, mostly because I can't do -j on cygwin. I imagine results > will be every 4 days or so if I run continuously. > > Is this enough now for us to qualify? Could you send me your libstdc++.log file? I'm curious about some of the libstdc++ failures, which are in pretty simple tests that shouldn't be target dependent. There might be something simple in testsuite_hooks.h or another common file that causes all those failures. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010 2010-09-21 10:01 ` Jonathan Wakely @ 2010-09-21 15:09 ` NightStrike 2010-09-21 17:27 ` Dave Korn 0 siblings, 1 reply; 32+ messages in thread From: NightStrike @ 2010-09-21 15:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jonathan Wakely Cc: Andrew Haley, Richard Guenther, Richard Guenther, Tobias Burnus, Gerald Pfeifer, Mark Mitchell, GCC, Joseph S. Myers, Jakub Jelinek On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote: > On 20 September 2010 17:33, NightStrike wrote: >> >> Ok, so it took a while to eventually find out that cygwin still >> malfunctions with -j, and I get lots of "fork() blows because it can't >> figure out how to find ubiquitous resources" errors. However, I >> eventually got this to finish: >> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-09/msg01864.html >> >> So there's a complete testsuite that includes libstdc++ this time. I >> will now have this running continuously. >> >> Note that you won't see results every day -- it takes a LONG time to >> do this, mostly because I can't do -j on cygwin. I imagine results >> will be every 4 days or so if I run continuously. >> >> Is this enough now for us to qualify? > > Could you send me your libstdc++.log file? > I'm curious about some of the libstdc++ failures, which are in pretty > simple tests that shouldn't be target dependent. There might be > something simple in testsuite_hooks.h or another common file that > causes all those failures. > I already killed that build, so I'll have to do it on the next one. The toolchain is broken once again here: x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt -m32 -I../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt/include -D_CRTBLD -I/tmp/build/root/x 86_64-w64-mingw32/include -pipe -std=gnu99 -Wall -Wextra -Wformat -Wstrict-ali asing -Wshadow -Wpacked -Winline -Wimplicit-function-declaration -Wmissing-noret urn -Wmissing-prototypes -g -O2 -MT math/lib32_libmingwex_a-sf_erf.o -MD -MP -MF math/.deps/lib32_libmingwex_a-sf_erf.Tpo -c -o math/lib32_libmingwex_a-sf_erf.o `test -f 'math/sf_erf.c' || echo '../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt/'`math/sf_ erf.c ../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt/math/sf_erf.c: In function `__trunc_float_wor d.isra.0': ../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt/math/sf_erf.c:268:1: internal compiler error: tree check: expected var_decl, have debug_expr_decl in const_value_known_p, at varpool.c:375 Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source if appropriate. See <http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html> for instructions. make[2]: *** [math/lib32_libmingwex_a-sf_erf.o] Error 1 make[2]: Leaving directory `/tmp/build/mingw/obj' make[1]: *** [all] Error 2 make[1]: Leaving directory `/tmp/build/mingw/obj' make: *** [build/mingw/obj/.compile.marker] Error 2 ....so it'll have to wait :( :( ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010 2010-09-21 15:09 ` NightStrike @ 2010-09-21 17:27 ` Dave Korn 2010-09-23 22:09 ` NightStrike 0 siblings, 1 reply; 32+ messages in thread From: Dave Korn @ 2010-09-21 17:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: NightStrike Cc: Jonathan Wakely, Andrew Haley, Richard Guenther, Richard Guenther, Tobias Burnus, Gerald Pfeifer, Mark Mitchell, GCC, Joseph S. Myers, Jakub Jelinek On 21/09/2010 02:51, NightStrike wrote: > The toolchain is broken once again here: > > x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt > -m32 -I../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt/include -D_CRTBLD -I/tmp/build/root/x > 86_64-w64-mingw32/include -pipe -std=gnu99 -Wall -Wextra -Wformat -Wstrict-ali > asing -Wshadow -Wpacked -Winline -Wimplicit-function-declaration -Wmissing-noret > urn -Wmissing-prototypes -g -O2 -MT math/lib32_libmingwex_a-sf_erf.o -MD -MP -MF > math/.deps/lib32_libmingwex_a-sf_erf.Tpo -c -o math/lib32_libmingwex_a-sf_erf.o > `test -f 'math/sf_erf.c' || echo '../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt/'`math/sf_ > erf.c > ../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt/math/sf_erf.c: In function `__trunc_float_wor > d.isra.0': > ../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt/math/sf_erf.c:268:1: internal compiler error: > tree check: expected var_decl, have debug_expr_decl in const_value_known_p, at > varpool.c:375 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45738 cheers, DaveK ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010 2010-09-21 17:27 ` Dave Korn @ 2010-09-23 22:09 ` NightStrike 2010-10-08 15:56 ` NightStrike 0 siblings, 1 reply; 32+ messages in thread From: NightStrike @ 2010-09-23 22:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave Korn Cc: Jonathan Wakely, Andrew Haley, Richard Guenther, Richard Guenther, Tobias Burnus, Gerald Pfeifer, Mark Mitchell, GCC, Joseph S. Myers, Jakub Jelinek On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Dave Korn <dave.korn.cygwin@gmail.com> wrote: > On 21/09/2010 02:51, NightStrike wrote: > >> The toolchain is broken once again here: >> >> x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt >> -m32 -I../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt/include -D_CRTBLD -I/tmp/build/root/x >> 86_64-w64-mingw32/include -pipe -std=gnu99 -Wall -Wextra -Wformat -Wstrict-ali >> asing -Wshadow -Wpacked -Winline -Wimplicit-function-declaration -Wmissing-noret >> urn -Wmissing-prototypes -g -O2 -MT math/lib32_libmingwex_a-sf_erf.o -MD -MP -MF >> math/.deps/lib32_libmingwex_a-sf_erf.Tpo -c -o math/lib32_libmingwex_a-sf_erf.o >> `test -f 'math/sf_erf.c' || echo '../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt/'`math/sf_ >> erf.c >> ../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt/math/sf_erf.c: In function `__trunc_float_wor >> d.isra.0': >> ../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt/math/sf_erf.c:268:1: internal compiler error: >> tree check: expected var_decl, have debug_expr_decl in const_value_known_p, at >> varpool.c:375 > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45738 > > cheers, > DaveK > Thanks. Hope it gets fixed fast. I will post a new testsuite once that bug is closed. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010 2010-09-23 22:09 ` NightStrike @ 2010-10-08 15:56 ` NightStrike 2010-10-08 16:06 ` Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-08 21:09 ` Richard Guenther 0 siblings, 2 replies; 32+ messages in thread From: NightStrike @ 2010-10-08 15:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave Korn Cc: Jonathan Wakely, Andrew Haley, Richard Guenther, Richard Guenther, Tobias Burnus, Gerald Pfeifer, Mark Mitchell, GCC, Joseph S. Myers, Jakub Jelinek On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 9:53 AM, NightStrike <nightstrike@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Dave Korn <dave.korn.cygwin@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 21/09/2010 02:51, NightStrike wrote: >> >>> The toolchain is broken once again here: >>> >>> x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt >>> -m32 -I../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt/include -D_CRTBLD -I/tmp/build/root/x >>> 86_64-w64-mingw32/include -pipe -std=gnu99 -Wall -Wextra -Wformat -Wstrict-ali >>> asing -Wshadow -Wpacked -Winline -Wimplicit-function-declaration -Wmissing-noret >>> urn -Wmissing-prototypes -g -O2 -MT math/lib32_libmingwex_a-sf_erf.o -MD -MP -MF >>> math/.deps/lib32_libmingwex_a-sf_erf.Tpo -c -o math/lib32_libmingwex_a-sf_erf.o >>> `test -f 'math/sf_erf.c' || echo '../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt/'`math/sf_ >>> erf.c >>> ../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt/math/sf_erf.c: In function `__trunc_float_wor >>> d.isra.0': >>> ../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt/math/sf_erf.c:268:1: internal compiler error: >>> tree check: expected var_decl, have debug_expr_decl in const_value_known_p, at >>> varpool.c:375 >> >> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45738 >> >> cheers, >> DaveK >> > > Thanks. Hope it gets fixed fast. I will post a new testsuite once > that bug is closed. > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-10/msg00624.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010 2010-10-08 15:56 ` NightStrike @ 2010-10-08 16:06 ` Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-08 16:10 ` Kai Tietz ` (3 more replies) 2010-10-08 21:09 ` Richard Guenther 1 sibling, 4 replies; 32+ messages in thread From: Jonathan Wakely @ 2010-10-08 16:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: NightStrike Cc: Dave Korn, Andrew Haley, Richard Guenther, Richard Guenther, Tobias Burnus, Gerald Pfeifer, Mark Mitchell, GCC, Joseph S. Myers, Jakub Jelinek On 8 October 2010 16:56, NightStrike wrote: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-10/msg00624.html There are a lot of failures there, including quite a few tests which don't look platform-dependent. Can you send me the libstdc++-v3/testsuite/libstdc++.log so I can see what's failing? A lot of them look locale-related, so could just be disabled if the platform doesn't support them. Others are more concerning and shouldn't be failing on any platform. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010 2010-10-08 16:06 ` Jonathan Wakely @ 2010-10-08 16:10 ` Kai Tietz 2010-10-08 16:54 ` NightStrike ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread From: Kai Tietz @ 2010-10-08 16:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jonathan Wakely Cc: NightStrike, Dave Korn, Andrew Haley, Richard Guenther, Richard Guenther, Tobias Burnus, Gerald Pfeifer, Mark Mitchell, GCC, Joseph S. Myers, Jakub Jelinek 2010/10/8 Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>: > On 8 October 2010 16:56, NightStrike wrote: >> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-10/msg00624.html > > There are a lot of failures there, including quite a few tests which > don't look platform-dependent. > > Can you send me the libstdc++-v3/testsuite/libstdc++.log so I can see > what's failing? A lot of them look locale-related, so could just be > disabled if the platform doesn't support them. Others are more > concerning and shouldn't be failing on any platform. > The locale stuff is related to printf-family and 'long double' types. Here is a special handling for printf functions necessary to use here instead the gnu-version of printf-family (_mingw_<printf> routines) we provide. Kai -- | (\_/) This is Bunny. Copy and paste | (='.'=) Bunny into your signature to help | (")_(") him gain world domination ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010 2010-10-08 16:06 ` Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-08 16:10 ` Kai Tietz @ 2010-10-08 16:54 ` NightStrike 2010-10-08 18:04 ` Jonathan Wakely 2011-02-24 17:05 ` NightStrike 3 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread From: NightStrike @ 2010-10-08 16:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jonathan Wakely Cc: Dave Korn, Andrew Haley, Richard Guenther, Richard Guenther, Tobias Burnus, Gerald Pfeifer, Mark Mitchell, GCC, Joseph S. Myers, Jakub Jelinek On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote: > On 8 October 2010 16:56, NightStrike wrote: >> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-10/msg00624.html > > There are a lot of failures there, including quite a few tests which > don't look platform-dependent. > > Can you send me the libstdc++-v3/testsuite/libstdc++.log so I can see > what's failing? A lot of them look locale-related, so could just be > disabled if the platform doesn't support them. Others are more > concerning and shouldn't be failing on any platform. > Sent log offlist ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010 2010-10-08 16:06 ` Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-08 16:10 ` Kai Tietz 2010-10-08 16:54 ` NightStrike @ 2010-10-08 18:04 ` Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-08 18:11 ` NightStrike 2011-02-24 17:05 ` NightStrike 3 siblings, 1 reply; 32+ messages in thread From: Jonathan Wakely @ 2010-10-08 18:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: NightStrike Cc: Dave Korn, Andrew Haley, Richard Guenther, Richard Guenther, Tobias Burnus, Gerald Pfeifer, Mark Mitchell, GCC, Joseph S. Myers, Jakub Jelinek Most of the failing libstdc++ tests which shouldn't be platform-dependent fail with this message: sh: /usr/bin/stty: Bad address libstdc++-v3/config/os/mingw32/error_constants.h is missing several entries, causing failures in the 19_diagnostics tests. There are a few failures in 23_containers/vector/ext_pointer which might be caused by an inttype definition on the platform, I'm not sure. A bugzilla PR should probably be opened if there isn't one already. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010 2010-10-08 18:04 ` Jonathan Wakely @ 2010-10-08 18:11 ` NightStrike 2010-10-09 1:40 ` Dave Korn 0 siblings, 1 reply; 32+ messages in thread From: NightStrike @ 2010-10-08 18:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jonathan Wakely Cc: Dave Korn, Andrew Haley, Richard Guenther, Richard Guenther, Tobias Burnus, Gerald Pfeifer, Mark Mitchell, GCC, Joseph S. Myers, Jakub Jelinek On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote: > Most of the failing libstdc++ tests which shouldn't be > platform-dependent fail with this message: > sh: /usr/bin/stty: Bad address This Bad address stuff is due to some conflict with cygwin. We really need to work with cygwin folks to find a proper fix, but are having difficulty. Dave, can you work with Kai to help troubleshoot that, by any chance? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010 2010-10-08 18:11 ` NightStrike @ 2010-10-09 1:40 ` Dave Korn 0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread From: Dave Korn @ 2010-10-09 1:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: NightStrike Cc: Jonathan Wakely, Andrew Haley, Richard Guenther, Richard Guenther, Tobias Burnus, Gerald Pfeifer, Mark Mitchell, GCC, Joseph S. Myers, Jakub Jelinek On 08/10/2010 19:10, NightStrike wrote: > On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote: >> Most of the failing libstdc++ tests which shouldn't be >> platform-dependent fail with this message: >> sh: /usr/bin/stty: Bad address > > This Bad address stuff is due to some conflict with cygwin. We really > need to work with cygwin folks to find a proper fix, but are having > difficulty. > > Dave, can you work with Kai to help troubleshoot that, by any chance? I'm pretty busy at the moment, and you're the one who actually has the problem manifesting itself, plus all the log files and build dirs that you'd need to figure out what it is that's going wrong. cheers, DaveK ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010 2010-10-08 16:06 ` Jonathan Wakely ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2010-10-08 18:04 ` Jonathan Wakely @ 2011-02-24 17:05 ` NightStrike 3 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread From: NightStrike @ 2011-02-24 17:05 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jonathan Wakely Cc: Dave Korn, Andrew Haley, Richard Guenther, Richard Guenther, Tobias Burnus, Gerald Pfeifer, Mark Mitchell, GCC, Joseph S. Myers, Jakub Jelinek On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote: > On 8 October 2010 16:56, NightStrike wrote: >> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-10/msg00624.html > > There are a lot of failures there, including quite a few tests which > don't look platform-dependent. > > Can you send me the libstdc++-v3/testsuite/libstdc++.log so I can see > what's failing? A lot of them look locale-related, so could just be > disabled if the platform doesn't support them. Others are more > concerning and shouldn't be failing on any platform. > Updated tests: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-02/msg02657.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010 2010-10-08 15:56 ` NightStrike 2010-10-08 16:06 ` Jonathan Wakely @ 2010-10-08 21:09 ` Richard Guenther 2010-10-08 21:14 ` NightStrike 1 sibling, 1 reply; 32+ messages in thread From: Richard Guenther @ 2010-10-08 21:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: NightStrike Cc: Dave Korn, Jonathan Wakely, Andrew Haley, Richard Guenther, Tobias Burnus, Gerald Pfeifer, Mark Mitchell, GCC, Joseph S. Myers, Jakub Jelinek [-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 1726 bytes --] On Fri, 8 Oct 2010, NightStrike wrote: > On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 9:53 AM, NightStrike <nightstrike@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Dave Korn <dave.korn.cygwin@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 21/09/2010 02:51, NightStrike wrote: > >> > >>> The toolchain is broken once again here: > >>> > >>> x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt > >>>  -m32 -I../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt/include -D_CRTBLD -I/tmp/build/root/x > >>> 86_64-w64-mingw32/include  -pipe -std=gnu99 -Wall -Wextra -Wformat -Wstrict-ali > >>> asing -Wshadow -Wpacked -Winline -Wimplicit-function-declaration -Wmissing-noret > >>> urn -Wmissing-prototypes -g -O2 -MT math/lib32_libmingwex_a-sf_erf.o -MD -MP -MF > >>>  math/.deps/lib32_libmingwex_a-sf_erf.Tpo -c -o math/lib32_libmingwex_a-sf_erf.o > >>>  `test -f 'math/sf_erf.c' || echo '../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt/'`math/sf_ > >>> erf.c > >>> ../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt/math/sf_erf.c: In function `__trunc_float_wor > >>> d.isra.0': > >>> ../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt/math/sf_erf.c:268:1: internal compiler error: > >>>  tree check: expected var_decl, have debug_expr_decl in const_value_known_p, at > >>> varpool.c:375 > >> > >> > >> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45738 > >> > >>   cheers, > >>    DaveK > >> > > > > Thanks.  Hope it gets fixed fast.  I will post a new testsuite once > > that bug is closed. > > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-10/msg00624.html Please also post results for the 4.5 branch. I think it doesn't make any sense to include a target in the list of primary or secondary targets if it didn't work reasonably for at least one release. Thanks, Richard. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010 2010-10-08 21:09 ` Richard Guenther @ 2010-10-08 21:14 ` NightStrike 2010-10-09 0:42 ` Richard Guenther 0 siblings, 1 reply; 32+ messages in thread From: NightStrike @ 2010-10-08 21:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Guenther Cc: Dave Korn, Jonathan Wakely, Andrew Haley, Richard Guenther, Tobias Burnus, Gerald Pfeifer, Mark Mitchell, GCC, Joseph S. Myers, Jakub Jelinek On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de> wrote: > Please also post results for the 4.5 branch. I think it doesn't make > any sense to include a target in the list of primary or secondary > targets if it didn't work reasonably for at least one release. > > Thanks, > Richard. Ok. Does that have to be done regularly? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
* Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010 2010-10-08 21:14 ` NightStrike @ 2010-10-09 0:42 ` Richard Guenther 0 siblings, 0 replies; 32+ messages in thread From: Richard Guenther @ 2010-10-09 0:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: NightStrike Cc: Dave Korn, Jonathan Wakely, Andrew Haley, Richard Guenther, Tobias Burnus, Gerald Pfeifer, Mark Mitchell, GCC, Joseph S. Myers, Jakub Jelinek [-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 650 bytes --] On Fri, 8 Oct 2010, NightStrike wrote: > On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de> wrote: > > > Please also post results for the 4.5 branch. Â I think it doesn't make > > any sense to include a target in the list of primary or secondary > > targets if it didn't work reasonably for at least one release. > > > > Thanks, > > Richard. > > Ok. Does that have to be done regularly? Not as regularly as for trunk. But catching regressions on a branch is still important. Richard. -- Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de> Novell / SUSE Labs SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nuernberg - AG Nuernberg - HRB 16746 - GF: Markus Rex ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 32+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-02-24 14:40 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 32+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2010-08-31 22:55 End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010 Mark Mitchell 2010-09-05 4:23 ` NightStrike 2010-09-05 18:03 ` Mark Mitchell 2010-09-05 18:23 ` NightStrike 2010-09-05 18:29 ` Mark Mitchell 2010-09-05 18:35 ` NightStrike 2010-09-05 18:40 ` Mark Mitchell 2010-09-05 22:10 ` Gerald Pfeifer 2010-09-05 22:18 ` Tobias Burnus 2010-09-06 9:22 ` Richard Guenther 2010-09-06 16:19 ` NightStrike 2010-09-06 16:21 ` Richard Guenther 2010-09-06 16:33 ` Tim Prince 2010-09-06 17:18 ` NightStrike 2010-09-06 17:24 ` Andrew Haley 2010-09-06 17:32 ` NightStrike 2010-09-20 23:23 ` NightStrike 2010-09-21 10:01 ` Jonathan Wakely 2010-09-21 15:09 ` NightStrike 2010-09-21 17:27 ` Dave Korn 2010-09-23 22:09 ` NightStrike 2010-10-08 15:56 ` NightStrike 2010-10-08 16:06 ` Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-08 16:10 ` Kai Tietz 2010-10-08 16:54 ` NightStrike 2010-10-08 18:04 ` Jonathan Wakely 2010-10-08 18:11 ` NightStrike 2010-10-09 1:40 ` Dave Korn 2011-02-24 17:05 ` NightStrike 2010-10-08 21:09 ` Richard Guenther 2010-10-08 21:14 ` NightStrike 2010-10-09 0:42 ` Richard Guenther
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).