On 11 October 2017 at 08:34, Paulo Matos wrote:
>
>
> On 10/10/17 23:25, Joseph Myers wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Oct 2017, Paulo Matos wrote:
>>
>>> new test -> FAIL; New test starts as fail
>>
>> No, that's not a regression, but you might want to treat it as one (in the
>> sense that it's a
On 11/10/17 10:35, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>
> FWIW, we consider regressions:
> * any->FAIL because we don't want such a regression at the whole testsuite
> level
> * any->UNRESOLVED for the same reason
> * {PASS,UNSUPPORTED,UNTESTED,UNRESOLVED}-> XPASS
> * new XPASS
> * XFAIL disappears (may me
On 11 October 2017 at 11:03, Paulo Matos wrote:
>
>
> On 11/10/17 10:35, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>
>> FWIW, we consider regressions:
>> * any->FAIL because we don't want such a regression at the whole testsuite
>> level
>> * any->UNRESOLVED for the same reason
>> * {PASS,UNSUPPORTED,UNTESTED,UNRE
On 11/10/17 11:15, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>
> You can have a look at
> https://git.linaro.org/toolchain/gcc-compare-results.git/
> where compare_tests is a patched version of the contrib/ script,
> it calls the main perl script (which is not the prettiest thing :-)
>
Thanks, that's useful. I w
On 11 October 2017 at 07:34, Paulo Matos wrote:
> When someone adds a new test to the testsuite, isn't it supposed to not
> FAIL?
Yes, but sometimes it FAILs because the test is using a new feature
that only works on some targets, and the new test was missing the
right directives to make it UNSUPP
On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 11:18 +0200, Paulo Matos wrote:
>
> On 11/10/17 11:15, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> >
> > You can have a look at
> > https://git.linaro.org/toolchain/gcc-compare-results.git/
> > where compare_tests is a patched version of the contrib/ script,
> > it calls the main perl script (
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017, Paulo Matos wrote:
> On 10/10/17 23:25, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Oct 2017, Paulo Matos wrote:
> >
> >> new test -> FAIL; New test starts as fail
> >
> > No, that's not a regression, but you might want to treat it as one (in the
> > sense that it's a re
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> * {PASS,UNSUPPORTED,UNTESTED,UNRESOLVED}-> XPASS
I don't think any of these should be considered regressions. It's good if
someone manually checks anything that's *consistently* XPASSing, to see if
the XFAIL should be removed or restricted to narro
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017, David Malcolm wrote:
On Wed, 2017-10-11 at 11:18 +0200, Paulo Matos wrote:
On 11/10/17 11:15, Christophe Lyon wrote:
You can have a look at
https://git.linaro.org/toolchain/gcc-compare-results.git/
where compare_tests is a patched version of the contrib/ script,
it calls
PASS -> ANY ; Test moves away from PASS
No, only a regression if the destination result is FAIL (if it's
UNRESOLVED then there might be a separate regression - execution test
becoming UNRESOLVED should be accompanied by compilation becoming FAIL).
If it's XFAIL, it might formally
On Okt 10 2017, Joseph Myers wrote:
> Anything else -> FAIL and new FAILing tests aren't regressions at the
> individual test level, but may be treated as such at the whole testsuite
> level.
An ICE FAIL is a regression, but this is always a new test.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs,
On Wed, 11 Oct 2017, Martin Sebor wrote:
> I don't have a strong opinion on the definition of a Regression
> in this context but I would very much like to see status changes
> highlighted in the test results to indicate that something that
There are lots of things that are useful *if* you have so
Snapshot gcc-6-20171011 is now available on
ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/snapshots/6-20171011/
and on various mirrors, see http://gcc.gnu.org/mirrors.html for details.
This snapshot has been generated from the GCC 6 SVN branch
with the following options: svn://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/branches/gcc-6
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017, Paulo Matos wrote:
> This is a suggestion. I am keen to have corrections from people who use
> this on a daily basis and/or have a better understanding of each status.
Not mentioning them (oddly I don't see anyone mentioning them)
makes me think you've not looked there so all
st:REG_EH_REGION (const_int 12 [0xc])
(nil))
+===GNAT BUG DETECTED==+
| 8.0.0 20171011 (experimental) (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) GCC error: |
| in assign_by_spills, at lra-assigns.c:1468 |
|
==GNAT BUG
DETECTED==+
| 8.0.0 20171011 (experimental) (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) GCC
error: |
| in assign_by_spills, at
lra-assigns.c:1468 |
| Error detected around
s-stposu.adb:343:8 |
| Please submit a bug r
16 matches
Mail list logo