------- Comment #4 from edmar at freescale dot com 2006-12-20 16:11 ------- (In reply to comment #3) > Subject: Re: [4.1 branch] ICE on valid code > > On Tue, 19 Dec 2006, edmar at freescale dot com wrote: > > > Still, On December 16 I had a complete build, and on December 17 I have an > > ICE. > > It feels more like a regression than moving forward... > > A complete build with, no doubt, all C++ tests failing with the problem > you noted in <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-09/msg00126.html>. Because > such a build is not particularly useful, I have taken a base with > t-ppccomm hacked to avoid building libgcc with -mlong-double-128 as the > appropriate baseline for testing. I disagree with that. First there is the C compiler, which is the most used by our customers, second, the C++ problem was manageable. Those are dejagnu results (C, C++, gfortran) from December 12: # of expected passes 40225 # of unexpected failures 58 # of expected failures 81 # of unresolved testcases 94 # of untested testcases 28 # of unsupported tests 493 # of expected passes 13148 # of unexpected failures 43 # of unexpected successes 2 # of expected failures 65 # of unresolved testcases 40 # of unsupported tests 136 # of expected passes 15334 # of unexpected failures 94 # of expected failures 6 # of unresolved testcases 6 # of unsupported tests 91
-- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30259
