[Bug libgcj/10353] [4.2/4.3/4.4 regression] Java testsuite failures

["ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>]

------- 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