Last known good revision: 139006
Known to fail with revision: 139008 .. 139189.
For the changes in this range I only see a few libstdc++ configury changes that
moved tests and generalized them in a seemingly correct manner without typos or
obvious ordering issues, but perhaps there's non-obvious ordering issues.
Either way, I now see (the FAIL lines are regressions):
...
Running /x/gcc/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/libstdc++-dg/conformance.exp ...
FAIL: 20_util/ratio/comparisons/comp2.cc (test for excess errors)
WARNING: 20_util/ratio/comparisons/comp2.cc compilation failed to produce
executable
...
FAIL: 20_util/ratio/operations/ops2.cc (test for excess errors)
WARNING: 20_util/ratio/operations/ops2.cc compilation failed to produce
executable
FAIL: 20_util/ratio/operations/ops3.cc (test for excess errors)
WARNING: 20_util/ratio/operations/ops3.cc compilation failed to produce
executable
...
FAIL: 27_io/basic_ostream/inserters_other/char/error_code.cc (test for excess
errors)
WARNING: 27_io/basic_ostream/inserters_other/char/error_code.cc compilation
failed to produce executable
with this in the .log:
/x/gcc/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/20_util/ratio/comparisons/comp2.cc:25: error:
'INTMAX_MAX' was not declared in this scope
(various errors followed)
and similar for the other tests.
Not sure at a glance what caused this, but maybe it's obvious to the author
(CCed).
N.B.: cross-target, newlib.
--
Summary: [4.4 Regression]: 20_util/ratio/comparisons/comp2.cc et
al
Product: gcc
Version: 4.4.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
ReportedBy: hp at gcc dot gnu dot org
GCC host triplet: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
GCC target triplet: cris-axis-elf
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37147
