http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47612
--- Comment #13 from Joel Sherrill <joel at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-04-07 15:28:39 UTC --- Not a problem to redo.. just CPU time and if you don't use it, you lose it. :-D I am repeating some information so it is all in one post. 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/000518.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-04/msg00577.html === gcc Summary === # of expected passes 67230 # of unexpected failures 384 # 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 Only an increase of two passes. I don't know what was the 3rd test that passed with the previous patch and not with this one.
