On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 11:07:44PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Steve Kargl
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Guys,
> >
> > I only read the gcc@ archive, so sorry about breaking the thread.
> > Testing with gfortran finds
> >
> > FreeBSD's libelf with no patches.
> >
> > # of unexpected failures 40
> >
> > FreeBSD's libelf with Kia's patch
> >
> > # of unexpected failures 19
> >
> > No patches. ?libelf from http://www.mr511.de/software/libelf-0.8.12.tar.gz
> >
> > # of unexpected failures 3
> >
> > Richi's lto-elf.c patch with libelf from URL://libelf-0.8.12.tar.gz
> >
> > # of unexpected failures 3
> >
> > FreeBSD's libelf with Kia and Richi's patches.
> >
> > # of unexpected failures 19
>
> Hm, so you didn't test FreeBSD's libelf without Kias patch but my GCC patch
> applied. (at least my patch doesn't make the situation worse for any case
> it seems)
>
> I would apply my patch as a reasonable workaround for (parts of) the
> FreeBSD libelf problems if it alone makes a difference.
>
FreeBSD libelf with your patch and without Kai patch.
=== gfortran Summary ===
# of expected passes 34204
# of unexpected failures 19
# of expected failures 33
# of unresolved testcases 16
# of unsupported tests 266
If you're convinced that elf_getbase in your patch can't
return -1 indicating a error, then I suppose your patch
is OK.
--
steve
