[CCing m68k, if the new results look acceptable] GOTO Masanori writes: > 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: > [...] > === 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?
the current results (included in the binutils m68k package): === ld Summary === # of expected passes 173 # of unexpected failures 10 # of expected failures 1 this looks definitely better than with 2.3.1. Do you have results with the same configuration, but compiled using current gcc? Matthias