LAST_UPDATED: Thu Dec 10 15:52:28 UTC 2009 (revision 155129)
Target: ia64-linux-gnu
gcc version 4.5.0 20091210 (experimental) [trunk revision 155129] (Debian
20091210-1)
=== acats tests ===
FAIL: cb1010a
FAIL: cb1010c
FAIL: cb1010d
=== acats Summary ===
#
LAST_UPDATED: Thu Dec 10 15:52:28 UTC 2009 (revision 155129)
Target: hppa-linux-gnu
gcc version 4.5.0 20091210 (experimental) [trunk revision 155129] (Debian
20091210-1)
=== acats tests ===
=== acats Summary ===
# of expected passes2321
# of unexpect
LAST_UPDATED: Thu Dec 10 15:52:28 UTC 2009 (revision 155129)
Native configuration is alpha-unknown-linux-gnu
=== libffi tests ===
Running target unix
=== libffi Summary ===
# of expected passes1609
# of expected failures 10
# of unsupported
LAST_UPDATED: Obtained from SVN: tags/gcc_4_4_2_release revision 152840
Target: sparc-linux-gnu
gcc version 4.4.2 (Debian 4.4.2-4)
Native configuration is sparc-unknown-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
=== g++ Summary for unix ===
# of expected
LAST_UPDATED: Obtained from SVN: tags/gcc_4_4_2_release revision 152840
Target: ia64-linux-gnu
gcc version 4.4.2 (Debian 4.4.2-4)
Native configuration is ia64-unknown-linux-gnu
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
=== g++ Summary ===
# of expected passes
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 12:30:57PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 02:33:28PM +1300, Michael Cree wrote:
> > What is the timeframe for getting the Alpha buildds updated to a
> > fixed version of gcc?
>
> We've switched to 4.4 as default gcc a few days ago, and
> the buildds are
Package: gcc-4.4
Version: 4.4.2-4
Severity: important
*** Please type your report below this line ***
With the following simple test file, the 3DNow! generated code is
incorrect, with final _m_pfsub generated as pfsubr %mm0,%mm0, thus
producing completely incorrect result.
*** main.c
#include
Please consider this one closed! In the end it proved to be a CIFS
related problem. By copying the test file on a local file system
everything works as far as this bug is concerned. Even GCC 4.3.4 that
previously worked is now failing with the same rather strange error.
Matthias Klose wrote:
> sev
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 02:33:28PM +1300, Michael Cree wrote:
> What is the timeframe for getting the Alpha buildds updated to a
> fixed version of gcc?
We've switched to 4.4 as default gcc a few days ago, and
the buildds are also running it already.
I've given back the packages that were known t
9 matches
Mail list logo