On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 02:27:41PM -0500, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: > > 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.
Meanwhile I'm running a regression hunt for the fix on mainline, which is currently looking between 2005-07-29 and 2005-07-30. Perhaps that's not relevant if the real fix was applied later, but at least we'll know why the section definition went away. Janis
