From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31104 invoked by alias); 4 Apr 2011 21:21:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 31081 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Apr 2011 21:21:57 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-iw0-f175.google.com (HELO mail-iw0-f175.google.com) (209.85.214.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 04 Apr 2011 21:21:53 +0000 Received: by iwn10 with SMTP id 10so8563389iwn.20 for ; Mon, 04 Apr 2011 14:21:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.246.71 with SMTP id lx7mr6191670icb.351.1301952112070; Mon, 04 Apr 2011 14:21:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.228.1 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Apr 2011 14:21:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20110314172228.GO30899@tyan-ft48-01.lab.bos.redhat.com> <20110321221214.GB11563@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> From: Michael Hope Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2011 21:21:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Second GCC 4.6.0 release candidate is now available To: Ramana Radhakrishnan Cc: Jakub Jelinek , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-04/txt/msg00058.txt.bz2 On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 4:16 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan 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 =A0-O3 -fomit-frame-pointer = =A0(test for excess errors) >> UNRESOLVED: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_11.f90 =A0-O3 -fomit-frame-poi= nter =A0compilation failed to produce executable >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_11.f90 =A0-O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -= funroll-loops =A0(test for excess errors) >> UNRESOLVED: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_11.f90 =A0-O3 -fomit-frame-poi= nter -funroll-loops =A0compilation failed to produce executable >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_11.f90 =A0-O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -= funroll-all-loops -finline-functions =A0(test for excess errors) >> UNRESOLVED: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_11.f90 =A0-O3 -fomit-frame-poi= nter -funroll-all-loops -finline-functions =A0compilation failed to produce= executable >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_11.f90 =A0-O3 -g =A0(test for excess= errors) >> UNRESOLVED: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_11.f90 =A0-O3 -g =A0compilatio= n failed to produce executable >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/func_assign_3.f90 =A0-O3 -fomit-frame-pointer =A0(test= for excess errors) >> UNRESOLVED: gfortran.dg/func_assign_3.f90 =A0-O3 -fomit-frame-pointer = =A0compilation failed to produce executable >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/func_assign_3.f90 =A0-O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll= -loops =A0(test for excess errors) >> UNRESOLVED: gfortran.dg/func_assign_3.f90 =A0-O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -f= unroll-loops =A0compilation failed to produce executable >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/func_assign_3.f90 =A0-O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll= -all-loops -finline-functions =A0(test for excess errors) >> UNRESOLVED: gfortran.dg/func_assign_3.f90 =A0-O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -f= unroll-all-loops -finline-functions =A0compilation failed to produce execut= able >> FAIL: gfortran.dg/func_assign_3.f90 =A0-O3 -g =A0(test for excess errors) >> UNRESOLVED: gfortran.dg/func_assign_3.f90 =A0-O3 -g =A0compilation faile= d 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