http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45841
--- Comment #32 from Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at gcc dot gnu.org> 2010-10-05
21:40:39 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #29)
> Otherwise, if the situation is too confused maybe we have to humbly take out
> the improvements to filebuf, allow HP to fix the other issues on the target,
> get back to zero fails there, and on top of that clean status reapply the
> filebuf changes.
Thanks for caring but FWIW, my work would not be helped by backing out any
changes; I do all the work at a fix set of revisions, followed up if needed
(rarely) at a later revision. I certainly did not have zero fails before, but
they will be much much fewer after this PR is closed!
before, at r164528:
=== libstdc++ Summary ===
# of expected passes 6518
# of unexpected failures 18
# of unexpected successes 1
# of expected failures 80
# of unsupported tests 496
at r164529, with one of the two found simulator bugs fixed and still with the
one mentioned spurious fail due to "svn diff" failing (i.e. really down to 4):
=== libstdc++ Summary ===
# of expected passes 6532
# of unexpected failures 6
# of unexpected successes 1
# of expected failures 80
# of unsupported tests 496
