Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote: On 8 October 2010 16:56, NightStrike wrote: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-10/msg00624.html There are a lot of failures there, including quite a few tests which don't look platform-dependent. Can you send me the libstdc++-v3/testsuite/libstdc++.log so I can see what's failing? A lot of them look locale-related, so could just be disabled if the platform doesn't support them. Others are more concerning and shouldn't be failing on any platform. Updated tests: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-02/msg02657.html
Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 9:53 AM, NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com wrote: On 21/09/2010 02:51, NightStrike wrote: The toolchain is broken once again here: x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt -m32 -I../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt/include -D_CRTBLD -I/tmp/build/root/x 86_64-w64-mingw32/include -pipe -std=gnu99 -Wall -Wextra -Wformat -Wstrict-ali asing -Wshadow -Wpacked -Winline -Wimplicit-function-declaration -Wmissing-noret urn -Wmissing-prototypes -g -O2 -MT math/lib32_libmingwex_a-sf_erf.o -MD -MP -MF math/.deps/lib32_libmingwex_a-sf_erf.Tpo -c -o math/lib32_libmingwex_a-sf_erf.o `test -f 'math/sf_erf.c' || echo '../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt/'`math/sf_ erf.c ../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt/math/sf_erf.c: In function `__trunc_float_wor d.isra.0': ../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt/math/sf_erf.c:268:1: internal compiler error: tree check: expected var_decl, have debug_expr_decl in const_value_known_p, at varpool.c:375 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45738 cheers, DaveK Thanks. Hope it gets fixed fast. I will post a new testsuite once that bug is closed. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-10/msg00624.html
Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010
On 8 October 2010 16:56, NightStrike wrote: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-10/msg00624.html There are a lot of failures there, including quite a few tests which don't look platform-dependent. Can you send me the libstdc++-v3/testsuite/libstdc++.log so I can see what's failing? A lot of them look locale-related, so could just be disabled if the platform doesn't support them. Others are more concerning and shouldn't be failing on any platform.
Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010
2010/10/8 Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com: On 8 October 2010 16:56, NightStrike wrote: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-10/msg00624.html There are a lot of failures there, including quite a few tests which don't look platform-dependent. Can you send me the libstdc++-v3/testsuite/libstdc++.log so I can see what's failing? A lot of them look locale-related, so could just be disabled if the platform doesn't support them. Others are more concerning and shouldn't be failing on any platform. The locale stuff is related to printf-family and 'long double' types. Here is a special handling for printf functions necessary to use here instead the gnu-version of printf-family (_mingw_printf routines) we provide. Kai -- | (\_/) This is Bunny. Copy and paste | (='.'=) Bunny into your signature to help | ()_() him gain world domination
Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote: On 8 October 2010 16:56, NightStrike wrote: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-10/msg00624.html There are a lot of failures there, including quite a few tests which don't look platform-dependent. Can you send me the libstdc++-v3/testsuite/libstdc++.log so I can see what's failing? A lot of them look locale-related, so could just be disabled if the platform doesn't support them. Others are more concerning and shouldn't be failing on any platform. Sent log offlist
Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010
Most of the failing libstdc++ tests which shouldn't be platform-dependent fail with this message: sh: /usr/bin/stty: Bad address libstdc++-v3/config/os/mingw32/error_constants.h is missing several entries, causing failures in the 19_diagnostics tests. There are a few failures in 23_containers/vector/ext_pointer which might be caused by an inttype definition on the platform, I'm not sure. A bugzilla PR should probably be opened if there isn't one already.
Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote: Most of the failing libstdc++ tests which shouldn't be platform-dependent fail with this message: sh: /usr/bin/stty: Bad address This Bad address stuff is due to some conflict with cygwin. We really need to work with cygwin folks to find a proper fix, but are having difficulty. Dave, can you work with Kai to help troubleshoot that, by any chance?
Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010, NightStrike wrote: On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 9:53 AM, NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com wrote: On 21/09/2010 02:51, NightStrike wrote: The toolchain is broken once again here: x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt -m32 -I../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt/include -D_CRTBLD -I/tmp/build/root/x 86_64-w64-mingw32/include -pipe -std=gnu99 -Wall -Wextra -Wformat -Wstrict-ali asing -Wshadow -Wpacked -Winline -Wimplicit-function-declaration -Wmissing-noret urn -Wmissing-prototypes -g -O2 -MT math/lib32_libmingwex_a-sf_erf.o -MD -MP -MF math/.deps/lib32_libmingwex_a-sf_erf.Tpo -c -o math/lib32_libmingwex_a-sf_erf.o `test -f 'math/sf_erf.c' || echo '../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt/'`math/sf_ erf.c ../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt/math/sf_erf.c: In function `__trunc_float_wor d.isra.0': ../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt/math/sf_erf.c:268:1: internal compiler error: tree check: expected var_decl, have debug_expr_decl in const_value_known_p, at varpool.c:375 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45738 cheers, DaveK Thanks. Hope it gets fixed fast. I will post a new testsuite once that bug is closed. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-10/msg00624.html Please also post results for the 4.5 branch. I think it doesn't make any sense to include a target in the list of primary or secondary targets if it didn't work reasonably for at least one release. Thanks, Richard.
Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de wrote: Please also post results for the 4.5 branch. I think it doesn't make any sense to include a target in the list of primary or secondary targets if it didn't work reasonably for at least one release. Thanks, Richard. Ok. Does that have to be done regularly?
Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010, NightStrike wrote: On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de wrote: Please also post results for the 4.5 branch. I think it doesn't make any sense to include a target in the list of primary or secondary targets if it didn't work reasonably for at least one release. Thanks, Richard. Ok. Does that have to be done regularly? Not as regularly as for trunk. But catching regressions on a branch is still important. Richard. -- Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de Novell / SUSE Labs SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nuernberg - AG Nuernberg - HRB 16746 - GF: Markus Rex
Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010
On 08/10/2010 19:10, NightStrike wrote: On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote: Most of the failing libstdc++ tests which shouldn't be platform-dependent fail with this message: sh: /usr/bin/stty: Bad address This Bad address stuff is due to some conflict with cygwin. We really need to work with cygwin folks to find a proper fix, but are having difficulty. Dave, can you work with Kai to help troubleshoot that, by any chance? I'm pretty busy at the moment, and you're the one who actually has the problem manifesting itself, plus all the log files and build dirs that you'd need to figure out what it is that's going wrong. cheers, DaveK
Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Dave Korn dave.korn.cyg...@gmail.com wrote: On 21/09/2010 02:51, NightStrike wrote: The toolchain is broken once again here: x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt -m32 -I../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt/include -D_CRTBLD -I/tmp/build/root/x 86_64-w64-mingw32/include -pipe -std=gnu99 -Wall -Wextra -Wformat -Wstrict-ali asing -Wshadow -Wpacked -Winline -Wimplicit-function-declaration -Wmissing-noret urn -Wmissing-prototypes -g -O2 -MT math/lib32_libmingwex_a-sf_erf.o -MD -MP -MF math/.deps/lib32_libmingwex_a-sf_erf.Tpo -c -o math/lib32_libmingwex_a-sf_erf.o `test -f 'math/sf_erf.c' || echo '../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt/'`math/sf_ erf.c ../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt/math/sf_erf.c: In function `__trunc_float_wor d.isra.0': ../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt/math/sf_erf.c:268:1: internal compiler error: tree check: expected var_decl, have debug_expr_decl in const_value_known_p, at varpool.c:375 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45738 cheers, DaveK Thanks. Hope it gets fixed fast. I will post a new testsuite once that bug is closed.
Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010
On 21/09/2010 02:51, NightStrike wrote: The toolchain is broken once again here: x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt -m32 -I../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt/include -D_CRTBLD -I/tmp/build/root/x 86_64-w64-mingw32/include -pipe -std=gnu99 -Wall -Wextra -Wformat -Wstrict-ali asing -Wshadow -Wpacked -Winline -Wimplicit-function-declaration -Wmissing-noret urn -Wmissing-prototypes -g -O2 -MT math/lib32_libmingwex_a-sf_erf.o -MD -MP -MF math/.deps/lib32_libmingwex_a-sf_erf.Tpo -c -o math/lib32_libmingwex_a-sf_erf.o `test -f 'math/sf_erf.c' || echo '../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt/'`math/sf_ erf.c ../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt/math/sf_erf.c: In function `__trunc_float_wor d.isra.0': ../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt/math/sf_erf.c:268:1: internal compiler error: tree check: expected var_decl, have debug_expr_decl in const_value_known_p, at varpool.c:375 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45738 cheers, DaveK
Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010
On 20 September 2010 17:33, NightStrike wrote: Ok, so it took a while to eventually find out that cygwin still malfunctions with -j, and I get lots of fork() blows because it can't figure out how to find ubiquitous resources errors. However, I eventually got this to finish: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-09/msg01864.html So there's a complete testsuite that includes libstdc++ this time. I will now have this running continuously. Note that you won't see results every day -- it takes a LONG time to do this, mostly because I can't do -j on cygwin. I imagine results will be every 4 days or so if I run continuously. Is this enough now for us to qualify? Could you send me your libstdc++.log file? I'm curious about some of the libstdc++ failures, which are in pretty simple tests that shouldn't be target dependent. There might be something simple in testsuite_hooks.h or another common file that causes all those failures.
Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Jonathan Wakely jwakely@gmail.com wrote: On 20 September 2010 17:33, NightStrike wrote: Ok, so it took a while to eventually find out that cygwin still malfunctions with -j, and I get lots of fork() blows because it can't figure out how to find ubiquitous resources errors. However, I eventually got this to finish: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-09/msg01864.html So there's a complete testsuite that includes libstdc++ this time. I will now have this running continuously. Note that you won't see results every day -- it takes a LONG time to do this, mostly because I can't do -j on cygwin. I imagine results will be every 4 days or so if I run continuously. Is this enough now for us to qualify? Could you send me your libstdc++.log file? I'm curious about some of the libstdc++ failures, which are in pretty simple tests that shouldn't be target dependent. There might be something simple in testsuite_hooks.h or another common file that causes all those failures. I already killed that build, so I'll have to do it on the next one. The toolchain is broken once again here: x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt -m32 -I../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt/include -D_CRTBLD -I/tmp/build/root/x 86_64-w64-mingw32/include -pipe -std=gnu99 -Wall -Wextra -Wformat -Wstrict-ali asing -Wshadow -Wpacked -Winline -Wimplicit-function-declaration -Wmissing-noret urn -Wmissing-prototypes -g -O2 -MT math/lib32_libmingwex_a-sf_erf.o -MD -MP -MF math/.deps/lib32_libmingwex_a-sf_erf.Tpo -c -o math/lib32_libmingwex_a-sf_erf.o `test -f 'math/sf_erf.c' || echo '../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt/'`math/sf_ erf.c ../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt/math/sf_erf.c: In function `__trunc_float_wor d.isra.0': ../../../build/mingw/mingw-w64-crt/math/sf_erf.c:268:1: internal compiler error: tree check: expected var_decl, have debug_expr_decl in const_value_known_p, at varpool.c:375 Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source if appropriate. See http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html for instructions. make[2]: *** [math/lib32_libmingwex_a-sf_erf.o] Error 1 make[2]: Leaving directory `/tmp/build/mingw/obj' make[1]: *** [all] Error 2 make[1]: Leaving directory `/tmp/build/mingw/obj' make: *** [build/mingw/obj/.compile.marker] Error 2 so it'll have to wait :( :(
Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010
On Mon, 6 Sep 2010, Tobias Burnus wrote: Gerald Pfeifer wrote: Do you have a pointer to testresults you'd like us to use for reference? From our release criteria, for secondary platforms we have: • The compiler bootstraps successfully, and the C++ runtime library builds. • The DejaGNU testsuite has been run, and a substantial majority of the tests pass. See for instance: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-09/msg00295.html There are no libstdc++ results in that. Richard.
Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 5:21 AM, Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de wrote: On Mon, 6 Sep 2010, Tobias Burnus wrote: Gerald Pfeifer wrote: Do you have a pointer to testresults you'd like us to use for reference? From our release criteria, for secondary platforms we have: • The compiler bootstraps successfully, and the C++ runtime library builds. • The DejaGNU testsuite has been run, and a substantial majority of the tests pass. See for instance: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-09/msg00295.html There are no libstdc++ results in that. Richard. This is true. I always run make check-gcc. What should I be doing instead?
Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 6:19 PM, NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 5:21 AM, Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de wrote: On Mon, 6 Sep 2010, Tobias Burnus wrote: Gerald Pfeifer wrote: Do you have a pointer to testresults you'd like us to use for reference? From our release criteria, for secondary platforms we have: • The compiler bootstraps successfully, and the C++ runtime library builds. • The DejaGNU testsuite has been run, and a substantial majority of the tests pass. See for instance: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-09/msg00295.html There are no libstdc++ results in that. Richard. This is true. I always run make check-gcc. What should I be doing instead? make -k check
Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010
On 9/6/2010 9:21 AM, Richard Guenther wrote: On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 6:19 PM, NightStrikenightstr...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 5:21 AM, Richard Guentherrguent...@suse.de wrote: On Mon, 6 Sep 2010, Tobias Burnus wrote: Gerald Pfeifer wrote: Do you have a pointer to testresults you'd like us to use for reference? From our release criteria, for secondary platforms we have: • The compiler bootstraps successfully, and the C++ runtime library builds. • The DejaGNU testsuite has been run, and a substantial majority of the tests pass. See for instance: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-09/msg00295.html There are no libstdc++ results in that. Richard. This is true. I always run make check-gcc. What should I be doing instead? make -k check make check-c++ runs both g++ and libstdc++-v3 testsuites. -- Tim Prince
Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 6:19 PM, NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 5:21 AM, Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de wrote: On Mon, 6 Sep 2010, Tobias Burnus wrote: Gerald Pfeifer wrote: Do you have a pointer to testresults you'd like us to use for reference? From our release criteria, for secondary platforms we have: • The compiler bootstraps successfully, and the C++ runtime library builds. • The DejaGNU testsuite has been run, and a substantial majority of the tests pass. See for instance: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-09/msg00295.html There are no libstdc++ results in that. Richard. This is true. I always run make check-gcc. What should I be doing instead? make -k check Ugh. And I thought I was golden :) This apparently requires autogen to do something about fixincludes/check.tpl. I have no idea what that is or what that means I'll report back. Any insight you can provide is greatly appreciated.
Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010
On 09/06/2010 06:18 PM, NightStrike wrote: On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 6:19 PM, NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 5:21 AM, Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de wrote: On Mon, 6 Sep 2010, Tobias Burnus wrote: Gerald Pfeifer wrote: Do you have a pointer to testresults you'd like us to use for reference? From our release criteria, for secondary platforms we have: • The compiler bootstraps successfully, and the C++ runtime library builds. • The DejaGNU testsuite has been run, and a substantial majority of the tests pass. See for instance: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-09/msg00295.html There are no libstdc++ results in that. Richard. This is true. I always run make check-gcc. What should I be doing instead? make -k check Ugh. And I thought I was golden :) This apparently requires autogen to do something about fixincludes/check.tpl. I have no idea what that is or what that means Just ignore the fixincludes test results. Andrew.
Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010
On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote: On 09/06/2010 06:18 PM, NightStrike wrote: On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Richard Guenther richard.guent...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 6:19 PM, NightStrike nightstr...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 5:21 AM, Richard Guenther rguent...@suse.de wrote: On Mon, 6 Sep 2010, Tobias Burnus wrote: Gerald Pfeifer wrote: Do you have a pointer to testresults you'd like us to use for reference? From our release criteria, for secondary platforms we have: • The compiler bootstraps successfully, and the C++ runtime library builds. • The DejaGNU testsuite has been run, and a substantial majority of the tests pass. See for instance: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-09/msg00295.html There are no libstdc++ results in that. Richard. This is true. I always run make check-gcc. What should I be doing instead? make -k check Ugh. And I thought I was golden :) This apparently requires autogen to do something about fixincludes/check.tpl. I have no idea what that is or what that means Just ignore the fixincludes test results. Andrew. Thanks! Life just got easier again :) Running it with -j5. Hopefully cygwin doesn't barf on that.. I know cygwin used to have issues with -j.
Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010
On 9/4/2010 9:23 PM, NightStrike wrote: We would like x86_64-w64-mingw32 to become a secondary target for 4.6. Who is we in this context? What has to be checked off for that to happen? It's not so much a matter of checking off. It's a combination of the SC's perception of the importance of the target and the technical stats of the port. I can raise the issue with the SC, if you like, but, personally, I'm not sure that 64-bit Windows is significant enough as a target platform for GCC to merit that status. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery m...@codesourcery.com (650) 331-3385 x713
Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010
On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Mark Mitchell m...@codesourcery.com wrote: On 9/4/2010 9:23 PM, NightStrike wrote: We would like x86_64-w64-mingw32 to become a secondary target for 4.6. Who is we in this context? Sorry, that would be Kai Tietz, myself, and the entire mingw-w64.sf.net project. What has to be checked off for that to happen? It's not so much a matter of checking off. It's a combination of the SC's perception of the importance of the target and the technical stats of the port. I can raise the issue with the SC, if you like, but, personally, I'm not sure that 64-bit Windows is significant enough as a target platform for GCC to merit that status. Ouch. What criteria do you use for that analysis? I will endeavor to prove our importance :) Note that 32-bit windows is already a secondary platform.
Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010
On 9/5/2010 11:23 AM, NightStrike wrote: It's not so much a matter of checking off. It's a combination of the SC's perception of the importance of the target and the technical stats of the port. I can raise the issue with the SC, if you like, but, personally, I'm not sure that 64-bit Windows is significant enough as a target platform for GCC to merit that status. Ouch. What criteria do you use for that analysis? I can't say what criteria the SC uses; I don't know what basis other SC members use to decide. I use my own instincts (which, I admit, is not a scientific basis) for deciding. I spend much of my life talking to various stakeholders in GCC, and so I have a reasonable feel for where people are presently using GCC, and where they would like to use it. Thus far, I've certainly heard of some interest in 64-bit Windows, but nowhere near as much as 32-bit Windows or Cygwin. I certainly don't mind raising the issue, if you want me to do that; I'm happy to carry messages to the SC independent of my own opinions. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery m...@codesourcery.com (650) 331-3385 x713
Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010
On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Mark Mitchell m...@codesourcery.com wrote: On 9/5/2010 11:23 AM, NightStrike wrote: It's not so much a matter of checking off. It's a combination of the SC's perception of the importance of the target and the technical stats of the port. I can raise the issue with the SC, if you like, but, personally, I'm not sure that 64-bit Windows is significant enough as a target platform for GCC to merit that status. Ouch. What criteria do you use for that analysis? I can't say what criteria the SC uses; I don't know what basis other SC members use to decide. I use my own instincts (which, I admit, is not a scientific basis) for deciding. I spend much of my life talking to various stakeholders in GCC, and so I have a reasonable feel for where people are presently using GCC, and where they would like to use it. Thus far, I've certainly heard of some interest in 64-bit Windows, but nowhere near as much as 32-bit Windows or Cygwin. I certainly don't mind raising the issue, if you want me to do that; I'm happy to carry messages to the SC independent of my own opinions. Yes, definitely bring it up. I'm just trying to get more cards stacked in our favor :)
Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010
On 9/5/2010 11:34 AM, NightStrike wrote: I certainly don't mind raising the issue, if you want me to do that; I'm happy to carry messages to the SC independent of my own opinions. Yes, definitely bring it up. I'm just trying to get more cards stacked in our favor :) OK, I've asked the SC to consider it. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery m...@codesourcery.com (650) 331-3385 x713
Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010
On Sun, 5 Sep 2010, NightStrike wrote: Yes, definitely bring it up. I'm just trying to get more cards stacked in our favor :) Do you have a pointer to testresults you'd like us to use for reference? From our release criteria, for secondary platforms we have: • The compiler bootstraps successfully, and the C++ runtime library builds. • The DejaGNU testsuite has been run, and a substantial majority of the tests pass. Gerald
Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010
Gerald Pfeifer wrote: Do you have a pointer to testresults you'd like us to use for reference? From our release criteria, for secondary platforms we have: • The compiler bootstraps successfully, and the C++ runtime library builds. • The DejaGNU testsuite has been run, and a substantial majority of the tests pass. See for instance: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-09/msg00295.html === g++ Summary === # of expected passes24917 # of unexpected failures18 # of expected failures 150 # of unsupported tests 587 === gcc Summary === # of expected passes66682 # of unexpected failures49 # of unexpected successes 3 # of expected failures 199 # of unresolved testcases 3 # of unsupported tests 1311 === gfortran Summary === # of expected passes35917 # of unexpected failures36 # of expected failures 40 # of unsupported tests 101 === obj-c++ Summary === # of expected passes489 # of unexpected failures54 # of expected failures 3 # of unsupported tests 15 === objc Summary === # of expected passes658 # of unexpected failures84 # of unsupported tests 20
Re: End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010
We would like x86_64-w64-mingw32 to become a secondary target for 4.6. What has to be checked off for that to happen? I have an auto-testsuite-thinger running constantly now and posting results to the ML (it takes several days to do a full dl/build/test, so it's not daily, but it's continuous). On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Mark Mitchell m...@codesourcery.com wrote: We (GCC RMs) plan to close GCC 4.6 Stage 1 on or or about October 27, 2010 (the closing day of the GCC Summit). Major features should be checked in prior to this point. Please let us know if you have a major feature that you think you will not be able to get checked in prior to October 27th. Thank you, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery m...@codesourcery.com (650) 331-3385 x713
End of GCC 4.6 Stage 1: October 27, 2010
We (GCC RMs) plan to close GCC 4.6 Stage 1 on or or about October 27, 2010 (the closing day of the GCC Summit). Major features should be checked in prior to this point. Please let us know if you have a major feature that you think you will not be able to get checked in prior to October 27th. Thank you, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery m...@codesourcery.com (650) 331-3385 x713
