From: Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana.gcc@googlemail.com>
To: Michael Hope <michael.hope@linaro.org>
Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Second GCC 4.6.0 release candidate is now available
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 15:47:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=udjvpGe9UvemS1_73xddU=5DsWzK8POHK1=uT@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=6RVx8wFvW_iwSZpPGy5FopY=OBLZ_f3OAV2XT@mail.gmail.com>
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
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-03-25 15:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-03-14 17:22 Jakub Jelinek
2011-03-21 22:13 ` Second " Jakub Jelinek
2011-03-24 22:58 ` Michael Hope
2011-03-25 15:47 ` Ramana Radhakrishnan [this message]
2011-03-25 18:03 ` Nicola Pero
2011-04-04 21:21 ` Michael Hope
2011-03-25 17:37 ` Joe Buck
2011-03-25 17:50 ` Jakub Jelinek
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='AANLkTi=udjvpGe9UvemS1_73xddU=5DsWzK8POHK1=uT@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=ramana.gcc@googlemail.com \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jakub@redhat.com \
--cc=michael.hope@linaro.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).