* [Bug libgcj/10353] [3.4/4.0/4.1 regression] Java testsuite failures
[not found] <bug-10353-222@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
@ 2005-10-16 21:47 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-10-30 22:03 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-10-16 21:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: java-prs
------- Comment #23 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-16 21:47 -------
Still fails:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-10/msg00590.html
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10353
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug libgcj/10353] [3.4/4.0/4.1 regression] Java testsuite failures
[not found] <bug-10353-222@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2005-10-16 21:47 ` [Bug libgcj/10353] [3.4/4.0/4.1 regression] Java testsuite failures pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2005-10-30 22:03 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-01-29 17:07 ` [Bug libgcj/10353] [3.4/4.0/4.1/4.2 " ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2005-10-30 22:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: java-prs
------- Comment #24 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-10-30 22:03 -------
There's no evidence that this affects any of the primary languages, so set to
P5.
(At one point the target milestone on this PR was removed, but at some point it
came back.)
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Priority|P3 |P5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10353
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug libgcj/10353] [3.4/4.0/4.1/4.2 regression] Java testsuite failures
[not found] <bug-10353-222@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2005-10-16 21:47 ` [Bug libgcj/10353] [3.4/4.0/4.1 regression] Java testsuite failures pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2005-10-30 22:03 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-01-29 17:07 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-02-28 20:35 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-01-29 17:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: java-prs
------- Comment #25 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-01-29 17:07 -------
Status for 4.1.0pre on Solaris 7, 8, 9 and 10:
32-bit:
=== libjava tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: Array_3 execution - gij test
FAIL: Array_3 execution - gij test
FAIL: FileHandleGcTest execution - source compiled test
FAIL: FileHandleGcTest execution - gij test
FAIL: FileHandleGcTest execution - bytecode->native test
FAIL: FileHandleGcTest -O3 execution - source compiled test
FAIL: FileHandleGcTest execution - gij test
FAIL: FileHandleGcTest -O3 execution - bytecode->native test
=== libjava Summary ===
# of expected passes 3995
# of unexpected failures 8
# of expected failures 10
# of untested testcases 16
64-bit:
=== libjava tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: Array_3 execution - gij test
FAIL: Array_3 execution - gij test
FAIL: FileHandleGcTest execution - source compiled test
FAIL: FileHandleGcTest execution - gij test
FAIL: FileHandleGcTest execution - bytecode->native test
FAIL: FileHandleGcTest -O3 execution - source compiled test
FAIL: FileHandleGcTest execution - gij test
FAIL: FileHandleGcTest -O3 execution - bytecode->native test
FAIL: Throw_2 execution - gij test
FAIL: Throw_2 execution - gij test
=== libjava Summary ===
# of expected passes 3991
# of unexpected failures 10
# of expected failures 10
# of untested testcases 18
i.e. we are on par with GCC 4.0.x on both 32-bit and 64-bit SPARC/Solaris.
There is a significant difference with GCC 4.0.x though: the above results are
valid only with GNU binutils (in this case 2.16.1 CVS), not with the Sun tools;
in the latter case, there are several additional failures:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-01/msg01501.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-01/msg01499.html
I've investigated a little and the additional failures seem to be related to
strings and UTF-8 support. I don't really plan to dig further. I'll add a
blurb about that in the platform-specific installation notes.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Known to fail|3.3.3 3.4.0 4.0.0 |3.3.3 3.4.0 4.0.0 4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10353
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug libgcj/10353] [3.4/4.0/4.1/4.2 regression] Java testsuite failures
[not found] <bug-10353-222@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2006-01-29 17:07 ` [Bug libgcj/10353] [3.4/4.0/4.1/4.2 " ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-02-28 20:35 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-05-06 11:30 ` [Bug libgcj/10353] [4.0/4.1/4.2 " christian dot joensson at gmail dot com
` (9 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-02-28 20:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: java-prs
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.1.0 |4.1.1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10353
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug libgcj/10353] [4.0/4.1/4.2 regression] Java testsuite failures
[not found] <bug-10353-222@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2006-02-28 20:35 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-05-06 11:30 ` christian dot joensson at gmail dot com
2006-05-06 11:46 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: christian dot joensson at gmail dot com @ 2006-05-06 11:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: java-prs
------- Comment #26 from christian dot joensson at gmail dot com 2006-05-06 11:30 -------
For sparc/sparc64 linux, the status for 4.2 20060503, from here,
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-05/msg00223.html, is this:
=== libjava tests ===
Running target unix/-m64
FAIL: Array_3 execution - source compiled test
FAIL: Array_3 execution - gij test
FAIL: Array_3 execution - bytecode->native test
FAIL: Array_3 execution - gij test
FAIL: Array_3 -findirect-dispatch execution - bytecode->native test
FAIL: Array_3 -O3 execution - source compiled test
FAIL: Array_3 execution - gij test
FAIL: Array_3 -O3 execution - bytecode->native test
FAIL: Array_3 execution - gij test
FAIL: Array_3 -O3 -findirect-dispatch execution - bytecode->native test
FAIL: Final execution - gij test
FAIL: Final execution - gij test
FAIL: Final execution - gij test
FAIL: Final execution - gij test
FAIL: Invoke_1 execution - source compiled test
FAIL: Invoke_1 execution - gij test
FAIL: Invoke_1 execution - bytecode->native test
FAIL: Invoke_1 execution - gij test
FAIL: Invoke_1 -findirect-dispatch execution - bytecode->native test
FAIL: Invoke_1 -O3 execution - source compiled test
FAIL: Invoke_1 execution - gij test
FAIL: Invoke_1 -O3 execution - bytecode->native test
FAIL: Invoke_1 execution - gij test
FAIL: Invoke_1 -O3 -findirect-dispatch execution - bytecode->native test
FAIL: PR218 execution - gij test
FAIL: PR218 execution - gij test
FAIL: PR218 execution - gij test
FAIL: PR218 execution - gij test
XPASS: PR26858 execution - source compiled test
XPASS: PR26858 output - source compiled test
XPASS: PR26858 execution - bytecode->native test
XPASS: PR26858 output - bytecode->native test
XPASS: PR26858 -findirect-dispatch execution - bytecode->native test
XPASS: PR26858 -findirect-dispatch output - bytecode->native test
XPASS: PR26858 -O3 execution - source compiled test
XPASS: PR26858 -O3 output - source compiled test
XPASS: PR26858 -O3 execution - bytecode->native test
XPASS: PR26858 -O3 output - bytecode->native test
XPASS: PR26858 -O3 -findirect-dispatch execution - bytecode->native test
XPASS: PR26858 -O3 -findirect-dispatch output - bytecode->native test
FAIL: assign -findirect-dispatch execution - bytecode->native test
FAIL: assign -O3 -findirect-dispatch execution - bytecode->native test
FAIL: pr83 execution - gij test
FAIL: pr83 execution - gij test
FAIL: pr83 -findirect-dispatch execution - bytecode->native test
FAIL: pr83 execution - gij test
FAIL: pr83 execution - gij test
FAIL: pr83 -O3 -findirect-dispatch execution - bytecode->native test
FAIL: stringconst2 -findirect-dispatch output - bytecode->native test
FAIL: stringconst2 -O3 -findirect-dispatch output - bytecode->native test
=== libjava Summary for unix/-m64 ===
# of expected passes 6697
# of unexpected failures 38
# of unexpected successes 12
# of expected failures 16
# of untested testcases 48
Running target unix
XPASS: PR26858 execution - source compiled test
XPASS: PR26858 output - source compiled test
XPASS: PR26858 execution - bytecode->native test
XPASS: PR26858 output - bytecode->native test
XPASS: PR26858 -findirect-dispatch execution - bytecode->native test
XPASS: PR26858 -findirect-dispatch output - bytecode->native test
XPASS: PR26858 -O3 execution - source compiled test
XPASS: PR26858 -O3 output - source compiled test
XPASS: PR26858 -O3 execution - bytecode->native test
XPASS: PR26858 -O3 output - bytecode->native test
XPASS: PR26858 -O3 -findirect-dispatch execution - bytecode->native test
XPASS: PR26858 -O3 -findirect-dispatch output - bytecode->native test
FAIL: assign -findirect-dispatch execution - bytecode->native test
FAIL: assign -O3 -findirect-dispatch execution - bytecode->native test
FAIL: stringconst2 -findirect-dispatch output - bytecode->native test
FAIL: stringconst2 -O3 -findirect-dispatch output - bytecode->native test
=== libjava Summary for unix ===
# of expected passes 6765
# of unexpected failures 4
# of unexpected successes 12
# of expected failures 16
# of untested testcases 14
=== libjava Summary ===
# of expected passes 13462
# of unexpected failures 42
# of unexpected successes 24
# of expected failures 32
# of untested testcases 62
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10353
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug libgcj/10353] [4.0/4.1/4.2 regression] Java testsuite failures
[not found] <bug-10353-222@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2006-05-06 11:30 ` [Bug libgcj/10353] [4.0/4.1/4.2 " christian dot joensson at gmail dot com
@ 2006-05-06 11:46 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-05-25 2:42 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-05-06 11:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: java-prs
------- Comment #27 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-06 11:46 -------
> For sparc/sparc64 linux, the status for 4.2 20060503, from here,
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-05/msg00223.html, is this:
Thanks, but this PR is for Solaris so avoid posting results for Linux here,
there
are some important differences as far as libjava is concerned.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10353
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug libgcj/10353] [4.0/4.1/4.2 regression] Java testsuite failures
[not found] <bug-10353-222@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2006-05-06 11:46 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2006-05-25 2:42 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-02-14 9:26 ` [Bug libgcj/10353] [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 " mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2006-05-25 2:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: java-prs
------- Comment #28 from mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-05-25 02:35 -------
Will not be fixed in 4.1.1; adjust target milestone to 4.1.2.
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.1.1 |4.1.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10353
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug libgcj/10353] [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 regression] Java testsuite failures
[not found] <bug-10353-222@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2006-05-25 2:42 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-02-14 9:26 ` mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-09-22 8:46 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-02-14 9:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: java-prs
--
mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|4.1.2 |4.1.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10353
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug libgcj/10353] [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 regression] Java testsuite failures
[not found] <bug-10353-222@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2007-02-14 9:26 ` [Bug libgcj/10353] [4.0/4.1/4.2/4.3 " mmitchel at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2007-09-22 8:46 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-07-04 16:29 ` [Bug libgcj/10353] [4.2/4.3/4.4 " jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2007-09-22 8:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: java-prs
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot
| |org
AssignedTo|ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot|unassigned at gcc dot gnu
|org |dot org
Status|ASSIGNED |NEW
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10353
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug libgcj/10353] [4.2/4.3/4.4 regression] Java testsuite failures
[not found] <bug-10353-222@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2007-09-22 8:46 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-07-04 16:29 ` jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-12-10 23:18 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-07-04 16:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: java-prs
------- Comment #29 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-04 16:29 -------
Closing 4.1 branch.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|[4.1/4.2/4.3/4.4 regression]|[4.2/4.3/4.4 regression]
|Java testsuite failures |Java testsuite failures
Target Milestone|4.1.3 |4.2.5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10353
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug libgcj/10353] [4.2/4.3/4.4 regression] Java testsuite failures
[not found] <bug-10353-222@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2008-07-04 16:29 ` [Bug libgcj/10353] [4.2/4.3/4.4 " jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-12-10 23:18 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-12-10 23:31 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: steven at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-12-10 23:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: java-prs
------- Comment #30 from steven at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-10 23:18 -------
This one is just dragged along with the Summary changes every time a new GCC is
released. I'd say WONTFIX for this bug. Eric, you would "add a blurb about
that in the platform-specific installation notes" (comment #25). Did that
happen? What do you, as a SPARC port maintainer, think what should happen with
this bug?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10353
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug libgcj/10353] [4.2/4.3/4.4 regression] Java testsuite failures
[not found] <bug-10353-222@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2008-12-10 23:18 ` steven at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-12-10 23:31 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-12-11 1:10 ` ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-12-11 12:44 ` [Bug libgcj/10353] " ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-12-10 23:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: java-prs
------- Comment #31 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-10 23:31 -------
How can this be a regression bug if there's not a single known-to-work
revision?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10353
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug libgcj/10353] [4.2/4.3/4.4 regression] Java testsuite failures
[not found] <bug-10353-222@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2008-12-10 23:31 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-12-11 1:10 ` ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2008-12-11 12:44 ` [Bug libgcj/10353] " ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-12-11 1:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: java-prs
------- Comment #32 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-11 01:10 -------
(In reply to comment #31)
> How can this be a regression bug if there's not a single known-to-work
> revision?
When I originally opened this PR, my opening comment noted that the java
failures I encountered were regressions from the 3.2.x series. Annoyingly my
comment doesn't actually list the testcases that were failing. That doesn't
seem like something I would normally leave out. :-) After some digging I
realized that's because the PR originally listed them in the Summary: field.
Somewhere along the line this PR got renamed to a generic "java testsuite
failures", I think it was Eric in comment#14. You can see the original summary
here from the gcc-bugs mailing list:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2003-04/msg00378.html
For the record, those failing testcases were: Array_3, TLtest, Thread_Join,
Thread_Wait_Interrupt & Throw_2.
Here is my testsuite results from the 3.2.3 release where the testcases pass:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2003-04/msg01566.html
Here is a 3.3.x result from around the same time showing the failures:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2003-04/msg01574.html
Anyway, I no longer have access to solaris boxes. I looked for recent
testsuite results to see if those testcases are still failing. It was hard
because many people seem to post solaris2 results without java enabled. (You
know who you are!) Here's a couple from 4.4 trunk on solaris2.10 and 2.11 that
shows they aren't failing. In fact the results actually look pretty good:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-11/msg01758.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2008-11/msg00647.html
I originally reported the bugs against solaris2.7, so I don't know if the
testcases got "fixed" by the OS upgrade or something done in GCC. Someone with
an older solaris would have to double check. Maybe Joe Buck who has solaris2.8
could help with that. If Joe's tests show that the specific failures I
mentioned don't appear in solaris2.8, then I would say it's fair to either
close this PR and note the remaining solaris failures in their own PRs, or at
least no longer call this PR a "regression".
I would lean towards the former, i.e. close this PR once we verify an older
solaris release and track any remaining failures in new PRs.
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |joe dot buck at synopsys dot
| |com
Known to work| |3.2.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10353
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread* [Bug libgcj/10353] Java testsuite failures
[not found] <bug-10353-222@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2008-12-11 1:10 ` ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
@ 2008-12-11 12:44 ` ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org
13 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread
From: ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org @ 2008-12-11 12:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: java-prs
------- Comment #33 from ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-12-11 12:44 -------
> Eric, you would "add a blurb about that in the platform-specific installation
> notes" (comment #25). Did that happen?
No, it didn't, IIRC I wasn't sure of my analysis at all.
> What do you, as a SPARC port maintainer, think what should happen with
> this bug?
WONTFIX seems appropriate, there has been essentially zero interest from the
SPARC or the Java maintainers for the Java compiler on SPARC/Solaris, ever.
Let's just wait for PR from users of this compiler, if any.
--
ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Keywords|wrong-code |
Resolution| |WONTFIX
Summary|[4.2/4.3/4.4 regression] |Java testsuite failures
|Java testsuite failures |
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=10353
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread