Armin K. wrote:
On 12.6.2015 17:12, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Laurence Dawson wrote:
=== g++ Summary ===
# of expected passes 93236
# of unexpected successes 2
# of expected failures 339
# of unsupported tests 3645
/sources/gcc-build/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../xg++ version 5.1.0 (GCC)
=== gcc tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: c-c++-common/goacc/acc_on_device-2.c scan-rtl-dump-times expand
"\\\\(call [^\\\\n]* acc_on_device" 0
=== gcc Summary ===
# of expected passes 113926
# of unexpected failures 1
# of expected failures 259
# of unsupported tests 1807
/sources/gcc-build/gcc/xgcc version 5.1.0 (GCC)
If your only failure is that one, then you are doing pretty well. One
out of about 200,000 is not very much.
By the way, google is your friend:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66332
Contains a fix that "fixes a test case" (one more reason for me to find
tests useless) to mark it as "expected failure" (and another reason).
If you get a thousand failures, then we have probably done something
wrong. An individual failure is probably only useful to the upstream
developers, but indeed an individual failure is as likely to be in the
test (or the test harness) as what is being tested.
-- Bruce
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
