On Fri, 9 Feb 2007, Mark Mitchell wrote: > GCC 4.1.2 RC2 is now available from: > > ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/prerelease-4.1.2-20070208 > > and its mirrors. > > The changes relative to RC1 are fixes for: > > 1. PR 29683: a wrong-code issue on Darwin > 2. PR 30370: a build problem for certain PowerPC configurations > 3. PR 29487: a build problem for HP-UX 10.10 a code-quality problem for > C++ on all platforms > > If you find problems in RC2, please file them in Bugzilla. For any > issues which are regressions relative to 4.1.1 or 4.1.0, please alert me > by email, referencing the Bugzilla PR number. Please do not send me > email before filing a PR in Bugzilla. > > Based on the absence of issues reported for GCC 4.1.2 RC1, I expect GCC > 4.1.2 to be identical to these sources, other than version numbers, and > so forth. I intend to spin the final release early next week. > > Thanks, > Mark Mitchell
Test results for sparc/sparc64 on solaris2.10 are here: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-02/msg00422.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2007-02/msg00423.html Comparing this to previous 4.1.x there are a few new failures: 1. g++.dg/debug/debug9.C fails as described in PR 30649. I believe this is simply a mistaken testcase checkin. If confirmed by someone, no big deal I can remove it. 2. g++.dg/tree-ssa/nothrow-1.C fails with -fpic/-fPIC. This seems to be a regression and started sometime between Oct 8 and Nov 2, 2006. I don't have historical test results any finer grained than that and I don't think other solaris2 testers use -fpic/-fPIC. Here are my posts from that time: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-10/msg00509.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-11/msg00076.html If I had to guess, I'd say it started with this checkin: > 2006-10-14 Richard Guenther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > PR rtl-optimization/29323 > * decl.c (finish_function): Set TREE_NOTHROW only for > functions that bind local. And as with some -fpic/-fPIC failures, there's a chance it's simply a problem with the testcase that's incompatible with pic, not a problem with the compiler. If so we can adjust the testcase code or simply skip it when using pic. 3. gcc.c-torture/execute/20061101-1.c is a new failure at -O2 and at more opt levels with -fpic/-fPIC, but that testcase is from November so it's probably not a regression. 4. gcc.dg/tree-ssa/20030714-1.c fails with -fpic/-fPIC and this one appears to have regressed since the case is from 2003. It started failing between June 18 and June 22, 2006 in the 4.1.x branch: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-06/msg01003.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-06/msg01167.html 5. gfortran.dg/cray_pointers_2.f90 fails with -fPIC (not -fpic). The error message is: ld: fatal: too many symbols require `small' PIC references: have 4604, maximum 2048 -- recompile some modules -K PIC. collect2: ld returned 1 exit status This one appears to be a regression from previous 4.1.x and 4.0 where it works. It looks like it started between June 18 and June 22, 2006: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-06/msg01003.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-06/msg01167.html 6. 22_locale/num_put/put/wchar_t/14220.cc fails with sparc64 -fpic/-fPIC. The sparc32 doesn't fail. This is a regression from the previous 4.1 release and 4.0.x. The testsuite logfile doesn't say anything about what failed. It started failing sometime between Oct 8 and Nov 2, 2006, which like #2 above has a wide gap between my historical test posts. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-10/msg00509.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-11/msg00076.html I don't know whether any of these are important enough to hold up the release, most appear not. Maybe Eric can comment. Thanks, --Kaveh -- Kaveh R. Ghazi [EMAIL PROTECTED]