--- Comment #24 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2010-05-12 22:51 ---
(In reply to comment #23)
> Well I can't approve it but I think it's as close to "obvious" as anything
> gets. If you send it to libjava-patches (and cc the upstream list for
> boehm-gc: - we're trying to avoid any div
--- Comment #23 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-12 22:20 ---
(In reply to comment #22)
> Hm, I'm not able to run thread_test.c and thread_leak_test.c tests using "make
> -k check", so otherwise deadly trivial patch can't be fully tested.
>
Well I can't approve it but I think
--- Comment #22 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2010-05-12 17:50 ---
Hm, I'm not able to run thread_test.c and thread_leak_test.c tests using "make
-k check", so otherwise deadly trivial patch can't be fully tested.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42811
--- Comment #21 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2010-05-12 17:46 ---
Created an attachment (id=20652)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=20652&action=view)
GC testsuite fixes
Patch that declares "int main" and adds "return 0;" to the tests.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugz
--- Comment #20 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2010-05-12 17:39 ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> As indeed it does in the other case as well, which now makes me suspect that
> the alpha FAIL is probably a false negative. The test code is rather old,
> declares main as an implict int func
--- Comment #19 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-12 16:48 ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> FYI, the same failure happens on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, but is silent for some
> reason:
> Leaked composite object at 0x2b5d6f749ef0
> (../../../gcc-svn/trunk/boehm-gc/tests/leak_test.c:16,
--- Comment #18 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2010-05-12 09:46 ---
FYI, the same failure happens on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, but is silent for some
reason:
gmake[4]: Entering directory
`/home/uros/gcc-build/x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu/boehm-gc'
Switched to incremental mode
Emulating dirty bits
--- Comment #17 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-10 20:54 ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> On alphaev68-pc-linux-gnu, I'm getting:
> FAIL: leaktest
> 1 of 4 tests failed
> Is this failure something to worry about?
The honest answer is: I can't tell you. These are test cases t
--- Comment #16 from ubizjak at gmail dot com 2010-05-10 17:01 ---
On alphaev68-pc-linux-gnu, I'm getting:
make[4]: Entering directory
`/space/uros/gcc-build/alphaev68-unknown-linux-gnu/boehm-gc'
Switched to incremental mode
Emulating dirty bits with mprotect/signals
Completed 3 tests
A
--- Comment #15 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-05-06 16:21 ---
Subject: Bug 42811
Author: davek
Date: Thu May 6 16:20:53 2010
New Revision: 159115
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=159115
Log:
PR target/42811
* tests/staticrootstest.c: New t
--- Comment #14 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-21 19:42 ---
And another one bites the dust.
--
davek at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #13 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-21 19:41 ---
Subject: Bug 42811
Author: davek
Date: Sun Mar 21 19:41:37 2010
New Revision: 157606
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=157606
Log:
PR target/42811
* libjava/configure.ac (DLLTOOL)
--- Comment #12 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-21 19:37 ---
Subject: Bug 42811
Author: davek
Date: Sun Mar 21 19:36:49 2010
New Revision: 157605
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=157605
Log:
PR target/42811 (prerequisite)
* jvmti.cc (_Jv_G
--- Comment #11 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-21 19:34 ---
Subject: Bug 42811
Author: davek
Date: Sun Mar 21 19:34:19 2010
New Revision: 157604
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=157604
Log:
PR target/42811 (prerequisite)
* include/private
--- Comment #10 from davek at gcc dot gnu dot org 2010-03-21 19:25 ---
Recategorising; "target" narrowly wins out over "libjava". Patch was approved
at http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/java-patches/2010-q1/msg00062.html
--
davek at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
15 matches
Mail list logo
