On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 12:54:03AM -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > LAST_UPDATED: Fri Feb 21 16:24:42 UTC 2003 > > Native configuration is i386-pc-netbsdelf-gnu > > === g++ tests === > > > Running target unix > > === g++ Summary === > > # of expected passes 7360 > # of expected failures 89 > # of untested testcases 15 > # of unsupported tests 3 > /tmp/Build/.new/gcc-3.2/gcc-3.2-3.2.3ds1/build/gcc/testsuite/../g++ version > 3.2.3 20030221 (Debian prerelease) > > === g77 tests === > > > Running target unix > > === g77 Summary === > > # of expected passes 1458 > # of unsupported tests 8 > /tmp/Build/.new/gcc-3.2/gcc-3.2-3.2.3ds1/build/gcc/testsuite/../g77 version > 3.2.3 20030221 (Debian prerelease) > > === gcc tests === > > > Running target unix > XPASS: gcc.c-torture/execute/loop-2e.c execution, -Os > FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/rbug.c execution, -O0 > FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/rbug.c execution, -O1 > FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/rbug.c execution, -O2 > FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/rbug.c execution, -Os
No clue about these, I'm afraid; I should clearly look at what rbug tests more closely, though. > === gcc Summary === > > # of expected passes 18674 > # of unexpected failures 4 > # of unexpected successes 1 > # of expected failures 67 > # of unsupported tests 47 > /tmp/Build/.new/gcc-3.2/gcc-3.2-3.2.3ds1/build/gcc/xgcc version 3.2.3 > 20030221 (Debian prerelease) > > === objc tests === > > > Running target unix > FAIL: objc.dg/naming-1.m (test for errors, line 20) > FAIL: objc.dg/naming-1.m (test for excess errors) > FAIL: objc.dg/naming-2.m (test for errors, line 7) > FAIL: objc.dg/naming-2.m (test for excess errors) Hmmm. I've never even touched this, so my chances of fixing it are... slim at best. > === objc Summary === > > # of expected passes 1031 > # of unexpected failures 4 > # of expected failures 6 > /tmp/Build/.new/gcc-3.2/gcc-3.2-3.2.3ds1/build/gcc/xgcc version 3.2.3 > 20030221 (Debian prerelease) > > === libstdc++-v3 tests === > > > Running target unix > XPASS: 22_locale/collate_members_wchar_t.cc execution test > XPASS: 22_locale/ctype_is_wchar_t.cc execution test > XPASS: 22_locale/money_get_members_wchar_t.cc execution test > XPASS: 22_locale/money_put_members_wchar_t.cc execution test > XPASS: 22_locale/moneypunct_members_wchar_t.cc execution test > XPASS: 22_locale/num_get_members_wchar_t.cc execution test > XPASS: 22_locale/num_put_members_wchar_t.cc execution test > XPASS: 22_locale/numpunct_members_wchar_t.cc execution test > XPASS: 22_locale/time_get_members_wchar_t.cc execution test > XPASS: 22_locale/time_put_members_wchar_t.cc execution test These all appear to involve wchar_t, which is a bit of a twisted topic on NetBSD; wide character support is, well... an ongoing issue. But I can dig into the test and see if I can figure anything out. > === libstdc++-v3 Summary === > > # of expected passes 421 > # of unexpected successes 10 > # of expected failures 16 > # of unsupported tests 6 > > Compiler version: 3.2.3 20030221 (Debian prerelease) > Platform: i386-pc-netbsdelf-gnu > configure flags: --host=i386-netbsdelf-gnu -v > --enable-languages=c,c++,f77,proto,pascal,objc --prefix=/usr > --mandir=/usr/share/man --infodir=/usr/share/info > --with-gxx-include-dir=/usr/include/c++/3.2 --enable-shared > --with-system-zlib --enable-nls --without-included-gettext > --disable-__cxa_atexit --enable-objc-gc > BOOT_CFLAGS=-O2 > > Patches that Debian applied in this version: [ ... ] > netbsd-dynlinker: > > netbsd-gcc-config: I should probably title these two (and, as I discussed with MK, they may need to be reworked before going upstream, since they affect things that differ between Debian's NetBSD and native flavors). > reporting: > <compiler> --help gives hint to /usr/share/doc/debian/bug-reporting.txt > > autoreconf: > autoreconf several directories for proper mipsen libtool support > > Counting all warnings, > there are 319 warnings in stage3 of this bootstrap. > > Number of warnings per file: > 223 SYSCALLS.c > 23 gcc/combine.c > 16 gcc/p/lang-specs.h > 14 gpc1 > 10 gcc/regclass.c > 4 gcc/p/gpc.c > 4 gcc/gcc.c > 4 gcc/fold-const.c > 4 ./intdoc.texi > 2 gcc/objc/lang-specs.h > 2 gcc/function.c > 2 gcc/expr.c > 2 gcc/emit-rtl.c > 2 gcc/cp/lang-specs.h > 1 gcc/sched-deps.c > 1 gcc/reload.c > 1 gcc/cp/init.c > 1 gcc/cp/class.c > 1 gcc/config/i386/i386.c > 1 gcc/calls.c > 1 > > Number of warning types: > 224 function declaration isn't a prototype > 37 comparison between signed and unsigned > 14 traditional C rejects string concatenation > 14 string length `???' is greater than the length `???' ISO C89 > compilers are required to support > 5 signed and unsigned type in conditional expression > 4 unused variable `???' > 2 unlikely character ) in @var. > 2 unlikely character ( in @var. > 2 GNU Pascal does not work with `???' debug info yet. > 2 warning in p/lang.c > 2 system, or no debug info at all (`???'). If you are > 2 building or testing GPC, add this option to `???' > 2 Please use stabs (option `???') if supported on the > 2 If you want to help testing GPC, you can disable this > 2 (e.g., `???' on the `???' command line). > 1 unused parameter `???' > 1 pointer targets in passing arg ??? of `???' differ in signedness > 1 mktemp() possibly used unsafely, use mkstemp() or mkdtemp() I notice other archs appear to have this stuff to; should I just ignore it? -- Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
pgpatT3BN0a16.pgp
Description: PGP signature
