Samuel Thibault, le Mon 09 Feb 2015 18:08:43 +0100, a écrit : > Samuel Thibault, le Mon 09 Feb 2015 18:03:33 +0100, a écrit : > > by comparing the first test passes, I can confirm that there are *WAY* > > fewer failures with this workaround in place. > > And the few dozen failures I have seen so far also happen with the i386 > build.
=== gcc Summary for unix === # of expected passes 108671 # of unexpected failures 124 # of unexpected successes 17 # of expected failures 276 # of unresolved testcases 1 # of unsupported tests 1496 To be compared with i386: === gcc Summary for unix === # of expected passes 115039 # of unexpected failures 94 # of unexpected successes 17 # of expected failures 324 # of unsupported tests 1723 The difference is essentially a few limits-fndefn.c failures, some cleanup-*.c failures and two dozen failures with only largefile.c (which I guess is about LFS). So I'd tend to think that it's relatively good and we can reassign the issue with tcl/expect. Samuel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150209181714.ga26...@type.bordeaux.inria.fr