http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47612
--- Comment #11 from Joel Sherrill <joel at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-04-07 11:44:54 UTC --- In both cases, I built gcc + newlib multilib + rtems multilib to ensure the entire software base was built with and without the patch. $ m68k-rtems4.11-gcc --version m68k-rtems4.11-gcc (GCC) 4.6.1 20110329 (prerelease) Without patch.. results are at: http://www.rtems.org/pipermail/rtems-tooltestresults/2011-April/000516.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-04/msg00525.html === gcc Summary === # of expected passes 67228 # of unexpected failures 386 # of expected failures 121 # of unresolved testcases 77 # of unsupported tests 1095 === g++ Summary === # of expected passes 24705 # of unexpected failures 720 # of expected failures 162 # of unsupported tests 449 With the patch ... results are at: http://www.rtems.org/pipermail/rtems-tooltestresults/2011-April/000517.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-04/msg00533.html === gcc Summary === # of expected passes 67231 # of unexpected failures 383 # of expected failures 121 # of unresolved testcases 77 # of unsupported tests 1095 === g++ Summary === # of expected passes 24705 # of unexpected failures 720 # of expected failures 162 # of unsupported tests 449 It looks like it didn't make anything worse and fixed 3 C tests. :-D I think this should be committed to the 4.6 branch and head. If you like, we can repeat the experiment on the 4.5 branch if that is desired. FWIW I would be happy to help run down some of the failure cases if someone is interested in trying to fix them. :-D
