> Some more info, the reason hpux only showed one XPASS in 3.4 seems to > be that the regexp isn't correct to match the assembler syntax. > Patches were installed on mainline but not in 3.4 for mmix and hpux: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2004-11/msg02513.html > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-02/msg00323.html > > The third xfail seems to have been fixed on or about July 29th 2004: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2004-07/msg01290.html > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2004-07/msg01240.html > > So it seems that if we backport the above patches and remove the first > two (passing) xfails we'd be result-clean. We could remove the third > (currently failing) xfail if we find and backport the patch that fixed > it.
(Sorry for the multiple emails) This appears to be PR 16276. I'm not sure though because the fix for that PR appears to have been applied on mainline on Aug 12, 2004, or two weeks after the tinfo1.C testcase started XPASSing all three checks. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16276#c19 There's a patch in there for 3.4 which has already been applied to the gcc-3_4-rhl-branch. See: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16276#c23 However the original fix that was reverted in 3.4 by Andrew was also applied to that branch: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16276#c24 Jakub, can you explain why you did that? Thanks, --Kaveh PS: I'm going to try applying the patch to 3.4 and see if it fixes tinfo1.C. -- Kaveh R. Ghazi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
