Hi!
On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 00:37:30 -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> On 04/13/2014 09:24 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > Can this please be reverted and a patch circulated for testing
> > instead?
>
> Done, sorry.
Committed as obvious:
r210742 | tschwinge | 2014-05-22 09:07:29 +0200 (Thu, 22 M
On Mon, 14 Apr 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 09:24:28PM -0400, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Apr 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 02:18:26PM +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> > > > I see failures from last night on aarch64-none-elf an
Jakub Jelinek writes:
>> I just noticed that I see this error, so the problem still
>> exists at r209347 (seen for cris-elf).
>>
>> (The FAILs are old and provided only for context; the ERRORs are
>> fatal.)
>
> Does say following patch make the problem go away?
>
> --- gcc/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/
On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 09:24:28PM -0400, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 02:18:26PM +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> > > I see failures from last night on aarch64-none-elf and arm-none-eabi
> > > (both bare-metal) configurati
On 04/13/2014 09:24 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
Can this please be reverted and a patch circulated for testing
instead?
Done, sorry.
Jason
On Fri, 11 Apr 2014, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 02:18:26PM +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> > I see failures from last night on aarch64-none-elf and arm-none-eabi
> > (both bare-metal) configurations even after moving up to dejagnu
> > 1.5.1. If this can't be fixed easily s
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 02:18:26PM +0100, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote:
> I see failures from last night on aarch64-none-elf and arm-none-eabi
> (both bare-metal) configurations even after moving up to dejagnu
> 1.5.1. If this can't be fixed easily should we consider reverting this
> patch in the int
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 03:23:43PM +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
> > I see failures from last night on aarch64-none-elf and arm-none-eabi
> > (both bare-metal) configurations even after moving up to dejagnu
> > 1.5.1. If this can't be fixed easily should we consider reverting this
> > patch in the inte
Ramana Radhakrishnan writes:
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 6:28 PM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
>> On Tue, 2014-04-08 at 10:10 +0200, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
>>> > richi asked for a testcase for 60731, and since we didn't already
>>> > have support for tests using dlopen, I had to add it.
>>> > Does this
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 6:28 PM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-04-08 at 10:10 +0200, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
>> > richi asked for a testcase for 60731, and since we didn't already
>> > have support for tests using dlopen, I had to add it.
>> > Does this approach make sense?
>>
>> r209187 ca
Jason Merrill writes:
> Hmm, the PCH tests already use nested calls to dg-test,
Do they? I don't think so. There are calls to dg-test in dg-flags-pch,
which is called by dg-pch, and then pch.exp runs dg-pch on each test,
but I see no other dg-test in the call chain.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schw
On 04/08/2014 05:58 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
I guess this depends on dejagnu >= 1.5, which added support for nested
calls to dg-test.
Hmm, the PCH tests already use nested calls to dg-test, I wonder why
they don't break this way?
Jason
Jason,
I tried the patch you sent to Dominique and it doesn't fix everything on MIPS.
The other problem is in gcc-dg-test-1 where you set extra_tool_flags. I don't
think it can be set and restored there so I moved that into dg-build-dso.
Also, I don't like setting dg-do-what-default back t
On 04/08/2014 04:10 AM, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
r209187 causes thousands of g++ test failures. AFAICT the failing tests are
those with no
explicit 'dg-do compile' directive which are now trying to give an executable
while
before r209187 they were using -S.
Does this fix it?
commit 94d8c7
On Tue, 2014-04-08 at 10:10 +0200, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
> > richi asked for a testcase for 60731, and since we didn't already
> > have support for tests using dlopen, I had to add it.
> > Does this approach make sense?
>
> r209187 causes thousands of g++ test failures. AFAICT the failing tes
Hi,
On 04/08/2014 11:58 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
I guess this depends on dejagnu >= 1.5, which added support for nested
calls to dg-test.
I see, thanks Andreas. In fact I'm using 1.4.4 here. Then, either update
prerequisites.html or tweak the code to not rely on 1.5.x features.
Paolo.
Paolo Carlini writes:
> On 04/08/2014 11:01 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> Jason Merrill writes:
>>
>>> richi asked for a testcase for 60731, and since we didn't already have
>>> support for tests using dlopen, I had to add it. Does this approach make
>>> sense?
>> ERROR: tcl error sourcing
>> /
Hi,
On 04/08/2014 11:01 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Jason Merrill writes:
richi asked for a testcase for 60731, and since we didn't already have
support for tests using dlopen, I had to add it. Does this approach make
sense?
ERROR: tcl error sourcing
/usr/local/gcc/gcc-20140408/gcc/testsuite
Jason Merrill writes:
> richi asked for a testcase for 60731, and since we didn't already have
> support for tests using dlopen, I had to add it. Does this approach make
> sense?
ERROR: tcl error sourcing
/usr/local/gcc/gcc-20140408/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/dg.exp.
ERROR: can't rename "dg-save-unk
> richi asked for a testcase for 60731, and since we didn't already
> have support for tests using dlopen, I had to add it.
> Does this approach make sense?
r209187 causes thousands of g++ test failures. AFAICT the failing tests are
those with no
explicit 'dg-do compile' directive which are now t
On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Apr 4, 2014, at 9:53 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> richi asked for a testcase for 60731, and since we didn't already have
>> support for tests using dlopen, I had to add it. Does this approach make
>> sense?
>
> Seems reasonable. I wonder i
On Apr 4, 2014, at 9:53 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
> richi asked for a testcase for 60731, and since we didn't already have
> support for tests using dlopen, I had to add it. Does this approach make
> sense?
Seems reasonable. I wonder if it works on solaris and darwin… I think darwin
pre 10.5
richi asked for a testcase for 60731, and since we didn't already have
support for tests using dlopen, I had to add it. Does this approach
make sense?
commit c0a8675658fcf59ae8f08c7e4588c865346c
Author: Jason Merrill
Date: Fri Apr 4 06:15:02 2014 -0400
PR c++/60731
* lib/gcc-dg
23 matches
Mail list logo
