On Fri, 27 Apr 2012, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > Ah, and all ACATS fails and > > > > -FAIL: gnat.dg/loop_optimization3.adb (test for excess errors) > > -FAIL: gnat.dg/loop_optimization3.adb execution test > > -FAIL: gnat.dg/test_8bitlong_overflow.adb (test for excess errors) > > -FAIL: gnat.dg/test_8bitlong_overflow.adb execution test > > > > are fixed by for example > > > > [...] > > > > thus are because array TYPE_DOMAIN is built using unsigned sizetype > > but these Ada testcases have array domains which really need signed > > types. The above is of course a hack, but one that otherwise survives > > bootstrap / test of all languages. > > Kind of a miracle if you ask me, but probably a reasonable way out for Ada. > Thanks a lot for devising it. > > > Thus, we arrive at the following Ada regression status if the patch series > > is applied (plus the above incremental patch): > > > > === acats tests === > > > > === acats Summary === > > # of expected passes 2320 > > # of unexpected failures 0 > > Native configuration is x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu > > > > === gnat tests === > > > > > > Running target unix/ > > FAIL: gnat.dg/array11.adb (test for warnings, line 12) > > FAIL: gnat.dg/object_overflow.adb (test for warnings, line 8) > > FAIL: gnat.dg/renaming5.adb scan-tree-dump-times optimized "goto" 2 > > FAIL: gnat.dg/return3.adb scan-assembler loc 1 6 > > > > === gnat Summary for unix/ === > > > > # of expected passes 1093 > > # of unexpected failures 4 > > # of expected failures 13 > > # of unsupported tests 2 > > > > Running target unix//-m32 > > FAIL: gnat.dg/array11.adb (test for warnings, line 12) > > FAIL: gnat.dg/object_overflow.adb (test for warnings, line 8) > > FAIL: gnat.dg/renaming5.adb scan-tree-dump-times optimized "goto" 2 > > FAIL: gnat.dg/return3.adb scan-assembler loc 1 6 > > > > === gnat Summary for unix//-m32 === > > > > # of expected passes 1093 > > # of unexpected failures 4 > > # of expected failures 13 > > # of unsupported tests 2 > > > > === gnat Summary === > > > > # of expected passes 2186 > > # of unexpected failures 8 > > # of expected failures 26 > > # of unsupported tests 4 > > > > > > Which I consider reasonable? > > Sure, no opposition by me to applying the whole set of patches.
Done now. Thanks, Richard.