On 04/15/2013 01:36 PM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2013, Tom G. Christensen wrote:
First round of results for gcc 4.8.x.
There's something in that patch that you probably did not mean
to include:
Missing: 4.8.0#x86_64-winnix-linux-gnu (arch/tune
amdfam10/amdfam10)#http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2013-03/msg03331.html
Missing: 4.8.0#x86_64-winnix-linux-gnu (arch/tune
amdfam10/bdver2)#http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2013-03/msg03334.html
Missing: 4.8.0#x86_64-winnix-linux-gnu (arch/tune
bdver2/bdver2)#http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2013-03/msg03332.html
Missing: 4.8.0#x86_64-winnix-linux-gnu (arch/tune
none/none)#http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2013-03/msg03333.html
Indeed.
It seems I accidentally took the output from my check script instead of
only cvs diff.
Are you planning to
look into those results above?
I already did when I prepared the patch. I chose to ignore them hence
why they are marked as missing.
Those results were posted as data points for this mail:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2013-04/msg00003.html
The non-standard host triplet used served no other purpose than easy
identification for the readers of that mail.
I suppose I could add them but should I then add them to the canonical
x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu entry?
-tgc
