Hi Matthias,
At Sun, 9 Mar 2003 08:26:52 +0100,
Matthias Klose wrote:
> Package: libc6-dev
> Version: 2.3.1
> Severity: grave
>
> Attached is a diff of a binutils built in unstable with gcc-2.95 and
> one built on yesterday's testing (still glibc-2.2.5). Although I
> cannot prove that other build depedencies of binutils are the cause of
> this failures, I start with glibc as the moist obvious one ...
I recompiled binutils 2.14.90.0.5-0.2 on m68k with my test built glibc
2.3.1-1 (2003-07-08 cvs) + gcc 2.95.
The result is:
Test Run By root on Wed Aug 6 11:18:45 2003
Native configuration is m68k-unknown-linux-gnu
=== binutils tests ===
...
=== binutils Summary ===
# of expected passes 32
=== gas Summary ===
# of expected passes 66
=== ld tests ===
UNTESTED: cdtest
UNTESTED: cdtest with -Ur
PASS: visibility (hidden_weak) (non PIC)
FAIL: visibility (hidden_weak) (non PIC, load offset)
PASS: visibility (hidden_weak)
FAIL: visibility (hidden_weak) (PIC main, non PIC so)
PASS: visibility (hidden_weak) (PIC main)
PASS: visibility (protected_undef_def) (non PIC)
FAIL: visibility (protected_undef_def) (non PIC, load offset)
PASS: visibility (protected_undef_def)
PASS: visibility (protected_undef_def) (PIC main, non PIC so)
PASS: visibility (protected_undef_def) (PIC main)
UNTESTED: selective1
UNTESTED: selective2
UNTESTED: selective3
UNTESTED: selective4
UNTESTED: selective5
UNTESTED: selective6
UNTESTED: S-records with constructors
=== ld Summary ===
# of expected passes 172
# of unexpected failures 3
# of untested testcases 9
I don't know number of unexpected failures or untested testcases in ld
summary is acceptable or not. How to act for this bug report?
Regards,
-- gotom
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
