From: Zack Weinberg <zack@codesourcery.com>
To: Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org>
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, java@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: libjava testresults
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 05:18:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87znr3soc5.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20021216121524.GA8359@elsschot> (Mark Wielaard's message of "Mon, 16 Dec 2002 13:15:24 +0100")
Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org> writes:
> Hi (java@gcc.gnu.org added to the CC),
>
> On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 10:36:50AM -0800, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>>
>> I have now committed a merge from trunk to the 3.4 basic-improvements
>> branch. My tests show only one significant difference between
>> testsuite results on the mainline and the branch: that is an
>> additional failure of the libjava testsuite. As the libjava test
>> suite is currently in bad shape with 65 unexpected failures on the
>> mainline, I am not inclined to hold the merge over it.
>
> That is strange. I tested both mainline and the 3.4-bi branch last night
> and the results don't look that bad.
How odd. Perhaps there is something locally glitched with my system,
but as I am using essentially the same one you are...
I was seeing a great deal of failures of the form
FAIL: ArrayStore execution - gij test
FAIL: ArrayStore execution - gij test
FAIL: ArrayStore2 execution - gij test
FAIL: ArrayStore2 execution - gij test
See http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2002-12/msg00548.html and
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2002-12/msg00547.html for the
full list.
However, the rebuild I did on 2002-12-16 shows only
FAIL: PR1343 compilation from bytecode
FAIL: PR1343 -O compilation from bytecode
WARNING: program timed out.
FAIL: SyncTest execution - gij test
WARNING: program timed out.
FAIL: SyncTest execution - gij test
WARNING: program timed out.
FAIL: SyncTest -O execution - bytecode->native test
FAIL: pr8823 execution - gij test
FAIL: pr8823 compilation from bytecode
FAIL: pr8823 execution - gij test
FAIL: pr8823 -O compilation from bytecode
(the WARNINGs appear to be related to the FAILs immediately after
them).
I'll do another build overnight and see what I get.
zw
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-12-18 8:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-12-14 11:22 basic-improvements call for testers Zack Weinberg
2002-12-14 11:30 ` Jan Hubicka
2002-12-14 14:26 ` Andreas Tobler
2002-12-15 15:09 ` Geoff Keating
2002-12-15 15:28 ` Zack Weinberg
2002-12-16 11:45 ` Andreas Tobler
2002-12-16 11:49 ` Geoff Keating
2002-12-16 12:03 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2002-12-16 12:53 ` Geoff Keating
2002-12-14 16:16 ` Andrew Pinski
2002-12-15 11:01 ` Mark Mitchell
2002-12-16 4:51 ` libjava testresults (Was: basic-improvements call for testers) Mark Wielaard
2002-12-16 8:36 ` Mark Wielaard
2002-12-17 5:23 ` Mark Wielaard
2002-12-18 2:25 ` Mark Wielaard
2002-12-18 5:18 ` Zack Weinberg [this message]
2002-12-18 10:23 ` libjava testresults Tom Tromey
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87znr3soc5.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com \
--to=zack@codesourcery.com \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=java@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=mark@klomp.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).