--- Comment #7 from hjl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-17 13:36 ---
Subject: Bug 41385
Author: hjl
Date: Thu Sep 17 13:36:06 2009
New Revision: 151803
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=151803
Log:
2009-09-17 H.J. Lu
PR testsuite/41385
* gcc.dg/df
--- Comment #6 from jakub at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-17 13:33 ---
I also saw this with r151791, both on x86_64-linux and i686-linux, though for
far fewer testcases.
The regressions all look like:
Executing on host: /usr/src/gcc/obj427/gcc/xgcc -B/usr/src/gcc/obj427/gcc/
/usr/src/gcc/
--- Comment #4 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-17 10:42 ---
Also not terribly useful without knowing what the excess errors are.
Again, works for me on i?86 and x86_64 linux.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41385
--- Comment #3 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-09-17 10:39 ---
See also http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2009-09/msg01511.html .
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41385
--- Comment #2 from rguenth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-09-17 09:53 ---
Works for me (r151791). What's your excess errors? I bet it is
sort of "no space left on device" or so. If lto testing runs on the same
machine it easily will fill up your disk ...
--
rguenth at gcc dot gnu do
--- Comment #1 from hjl dot tools at gmail dot com 2009-09-17 03:31 ---
On Linux/x86-64, revision 151771 gave
FAIL: gcc.dg/2111-1.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/2906-1.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/20010405-1.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/20011214-1.
