* GCC 4.6.0 release candidate is now available @ 2011-03-14 17:22 Jakub Jelinek 2011-03-21 22:13 ` Second " Jakub Jelinek 0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Jakub Jelinek @ 2011-03-14 17:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Second GCC 4.6.0 release candidate is now available 2011-03-14 17:22 GCC 4.6.0 release candidate is now available Jakub Jelinek @ 2011-03-21 22:13 ` Jakub Jelinek 2011-03-24 22:58 ` Michael Hope 2011-03-25 17:37 ` Joe Buck 0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Jakub Jelinek @ 2011-03-21 22:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Second GCC 4.6.0 release candidate is now available 2011-03-21 22:13 ` Second " Jakub Jelinek @ 2011-03-24 22:58 ` Michael Hope 2011-03-25 15:47 ` Ramana Radhakrishnan 2011-03-25 17:37 ` Joe Buck 1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Michael Hope @ 2011-03-24 22:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jakub Jelinek; +Cc: gcc 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Second GCC 4.6.0 release candidate is now available 2011-03-24 22:58 ` Michael Hope @ 2011-03-25 15:47 ` Ramana Radhakrishnan 2011-03-25 18:03 ` Nicola Pero 2011-04-04 21:21 ` Michael Hope 0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Ramana Radhakrishnan @ 2011-03-25 15:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Michael Hope; +Cc: Jakub Jelinek, gcc 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 > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Second GCC 4.6.0 release candidate is now available 2011-03-25 15:47 ` Ramana Radhakrishnan @ 2011-03-25 18:03 ` Nicola Pero 2011-04-04 21:21 ` Michael Hope 1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Nicola Pero @ 2011-03-25 18:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ramana Radhakrishnan; +Cc: Michael Hope, Jakub Jelinek, gcc > 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Second GCC 4.6.0 release candidate is now available 2011-03-25 15:47 ` Ramana Radhakrishnan 2011-03-25 18:03 ` Nicola Pero @ 2011-04-04 21:21 ` Michael Hope 1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Michael Hope @ 2011-04-04 21:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ramana Radhakrishnan; +Cc: Jakub Jelinek, gcc 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Second GCC 4.6.0 release candidate is now available 2011-03-21 22:13 ` Second " Jakub Jelinek 2011-03-24 22:58 ` Michael Hope @ 2011-03-25 17:37 ` Joe Buck 2011-03-25 17:50 ` Jakub Jelinek 1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread From: Joe Buck @ 2011-03-25 17:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jakub Jelinek; +Cc: gcc 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: Second GCC 4.6.0 release candidate is now available 2011-03-25 17:37 ` Joe Buck @ 2011-03-25 17:50 ` Jakub Jelinek 0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread From: Jakub Jelinek @ 2011-03-25 17:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Joe Buck; +Cc: gcc 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-04-04 21:21 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2011-03-14 17:22 GCC 4.6.0 release candidate is now available Jakub Jelinek 2011-03-21 22:13 ` Second " Jakub Jelinek 2011-03-24 22:58 ` Michael Hope 2011-03-25 15:47 ` Ramana Radhakrishnan 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
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).