Re: [Cegcc-devel] Apologies to any autotesters that noticed an extra FAIL in binutils HEAD.

2009-04-03 Thread Dave Korn
Vincent R. wrote: > Hi Dave, > > > Thanks for the information but cegcc doesn't upgrade binutils very often > and I think we don't use testsuite either (I know it's bad). > > By the way you are really on every mailing list and I thought cegcc ML > would be the last shelter but you found us ;-)

Re: [Cegcc-devel] Apologies to any autotesters that noticed an extra FAIL in binutils HEAD.

2009-04-03 Thread Vincent R.
Hi Dave, Thanks for the information but cegcc doesn't upgrade binutils very often and I think we don't use testsuite either (I know it's bad). By the way you are really on every mailing list and I thought cegcc ML would be the last shelter but you found us ;-) One day I will do a script that mon

[Cegcc-devel] Apologies to any autotesters that noticed an extra FAIL in binutils HEAD.

2009-04-03 Thread Dave Korn
Morning all! As the subject line: I added a new testcase yesterday to binutils CVS, and made a dumb blunder by extending it to cover more than just x86 targets without thinking properly first. Anyone who runs an overnight autotester on binutils may spot an extra FAIL; please disregard, as