Hi Michael, Thanks for running these. I spent some time this morning looking through the results, they largely look ok though I don't have much perspective on the the objc/ obj-c++ failures.
These failures here For v7-a , A9 and Neon - these failures below: > Running target unix > FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_11.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer (test > for excess errors) > UNRESOLVED: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_11.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer > compilation failed to produce executable > FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_11.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer > -funroll-loops (test for excess errors) > UNRESOLVED: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_11.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer > -funroll-loops compilation failed to produce executable > FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_11.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer > -funroll-all-loops -finline-functions (test for excess errors) > UNRESOLVED: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_11.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer > -funroll-all-loops -finline-functions compilation failed to produce > executable > FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_11.f90 -O3 -g (test for excess errors) > UNRESOLVED: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_11.f90 -O3 -g compilation failed > to produce executable > FAIL: gfortran.dg/func_assign_3.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer (test for > excess errors) > UNRESOLVED: gfortran.dg/func_assign_3.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer > compilation failed to produce executable > FAIL: gfortran.dg/func_assign_3.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops > (test for excess errors) > UNRESOLVED: gfortran.dg/func_assign_3.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer > -funroll-loops compilation failed to produce executable > FAIL: gfortran.dg/func_assign_3.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer > -funroll-all-loops -finline-functions (test for excess errors) > UNRESOLVED: gfortran.dg/func_assign_3.f90 -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer > -funroll-all-loops -finline-functions compilation failed to produce > executable > FAIL: gfortran.dg/func_assign_3.f90 -O3 -g (test for excess errors) > UNRESOLVED: gfortran.dg/func_assign_3.f90 -O3 -g compilation failed to > produce executable are caused by a broken assembler. All these tests appear to pass fine in a cross environment on my machine. These all appear to fail because of the assembler failing to assemble something like vmov.i64 d9,#-4294967296 which is vmov.i64 d9,0xffffffff00000000 and a valid instruction. I think your assembler needs an update Otherwise the testresults for A9 appear to be largely in line with other results. From v5t. > FAIL: gcc.dg/c90-intconst-1.c (internal compiler error) > FAIL: gcc.dg/c90-intconst-1.c (test for excess errors) The c90 testfails in your v5t run appear to be some kind of NFS glitch because the compiler fails to spawn from dejagnu. I tried logging into ursa2 and tried out the same test after fettling with paths etc and it just seemed to work. I'm still looking through the other results but I haven't spotted anything obvious broken yet. cheers Ramana On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Michael Hope <michael.h...@linaro.org> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: >> A second GCC 4.6.0 release candidate is available at: >> >> ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/4.6.0-RC-20110321/ >> >> Please test the tarballs and report any problems to Bugzilla. >> CC me on the bugs if you believe they are regressions from >> previous releases severe enough to block the 4.6.0 release. >> >> If no more blockers appear I'd like to release GCC 4.6.0 >> early next week. > > The RC bootstraps C, C++, Fortran, Obj-C, and Obj-C++ on > ARMv7/Cortex-A9/Thumb-2/NEON, ARMv5T/ARM/softfp, ARMv5T/Thumb/softfp, > and ARMv4T/ARM/softfp. I'm afraid I haven't reviewed the test results > (Richard? Ramana?) > > See: > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-03/msg02298.html > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-03/msg02391.html > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-03/msg02394.html > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-03/msg02393.html > > and: > http://builds.linaro.org/toolchain/gcc-4.6.0-RC-20110321/logs/ > > -- Michael >
