> 1. g++.dg/debug/debug9.C fails as described in PR 30649. I believe this > is simply a mistaken testcase checkin. If confirmed by someone, no big > deal I can remove it.
Looks bogus to me like the 2 other testcases. > 3. gcc.c-torture/execute/20061101-1.c is a new failure at -O2 and at more > opt levels with -fpic/-fPIC, but that testcase is from November so it's > probably not a regression. This is a real failure at -O2, caused by a bad iteraction between the old loop optimizer and the insn cost settings in the SPARC back-end. But it's not a regression in the 4.x series. Of course it will be gone in 4.2 and later. I wrote a patch for the back-end at some point, but the problem is really in the old loop optimizer. I think we can simply mark it as XFAIL on SPARC. > I don't know whether any of these are important enough to hold up the > release, most appear not. The -fpic/-fPIC failures are a little annoying but other platforms probably have similar glitches, so we can live with them (I personally don't test with -fpic/-fPIC so I have only the above 2 failures in my logs). Results on other versions of Solaris are on par with those on Solaris 10. -- Eric Botcazou
