At Thu, 7 Aug 2003 08:08:24 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > > [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.
Exactly. Well, your original report ts-2.13.90.0.18.2-gcc-2.95 has no unexpected failures, though... > Do you have results with the same configuration, but compiled using > current gcc? No, I didn't try to build binutils with the current gcc. I think glibc 2.3.2-2 is installed in m68k within a few weeks. Regards, -- gotom