Mark Mitchell wrote:
The GCC 4.0.2 RC3 prerelease is spinning now.
If all goes well, it will be available later today.
From an RTEMS perspective, 4.0.2RC2 with no patches appeared to
be at least as good as 4.0.1 w/RTEMS patches. I spotted no
new issues. I built a native C, C++, and Ada
Hello,
You really do not want to get a correction for:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23631
before release?
I checked again with 4.0.2 20050917, and nothing
has changed since:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-09/msg00251.html
Etienne.
On 9/19/05, Paolo Bonzini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I applied the patch by hand (not working with CVS) and it
does _not_ solve the problem.
In this case, I am sorry but the probability of a fix before the release
is close to zero.
The problem with 4.0 is that it behaves completely
Please test, post test results to gcc-testresults, and send me an email
pointing at the results.
Still OK for SPARC/Solaris:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-09/msg00929.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-09/msg00930.html
On Sep 18, 2005, at 2:43 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
In fact, as far as I can recall, 4.0.2 will be the first
ever GCC release with zero testsuite FAILs across all
languages on s390-ibm-linux ...
[ rub eyes ]
[ head explodes ]
[ desperately trying to make sense of the world ]
You didn't test
GCC 4.0.2 RC2 is now available here
Sill ok on arm-none-elf:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-09/msg00938.html
Paul
You didn't test --enable-languages=obj-c++
Yeah, it's a plot, we positively refuse to test everything Apple has *not*
contributed. ;-)
--
Eric Botcazou
On Sep 19, 2005, at 3:21 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
On Sep 18, 2005, at 2:43 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
In fact, as far as I can recall, 4.0.2 will be the first
ever GCC release with zero testsuite FAILs across all
languages on s390-ibm-linux ...
[ rub eyes ]
[ head explodes ]
[ desperately
Anyways, all of the known failures with the obj-c++ with the GNU
runtime have been filed and someone needs to look into them.
Are you talking about these?
=== obj-c++ tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: obj-c++.dg/bitfield-1.mm (test for excess errors)
FAIL:
On Sep 19, 2005, at 4:21 PM, Eric Botcazou wrote:
Anyways, all of the known failures with the obj-c++ with the GNU
runtime have been filed and someone needs to look into them.
Are you talking about these?
I filed them as bugs, not fixed them.
Thanks,
Andrew Pinski
Please test, post test results to gcc-testresults, and send me an email
pointing at the results.
OK for sh4-unknown-linux-gnu:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-09/msg00902.html
Regards,
kaz
On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 09:41:54AM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Please test, post test results to gcc-testresults, and send me an email
pointing at the results.
OK for powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-09/msg00942.html
Janis
Etienne Lorrain wrote:
Hello,
You really do not want to get a correction for:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23631
before release?
I'd love to get a patch for this problem. -- but there's no readily
available prospect, and this is not a regression from 4.0.x. The
primary
Mark Mitchell wrote:
Please test, post test results to gcc-testresults, and send me an email
pointing at the results.
s390(x)-ibm-linux is still fine:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-09/msg00883.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-09/msg00884.html
In fact, as far as I
Mark Mitchell wrote:
Please test, post test results to gcc-testresults, and send me an email
pointing at the results.
darwin ppc should be ok.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-09/msg00898.html
Andreas
15 matches
Mail list logo
