On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, FX Coudert wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I reviewed this afternoon the postings from the gcc-testresults
> mailing-list for the past month, and we have a couple of gfortran
> testsuite failures showing up on various targets. Could people with
> access to said targets (possibly maintain
Thanks Tim for sending the dump files!
> for this one:
> > FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr30771.c scan-tree-dump-times vectorized 1 loops 1
>
> there should be { target vect_unpack } added to the check. i.e.:
> - /* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump-times "vectorized 1 loops" 1 "vect" } }
*/
> + /* { dg-final { sc
> * hppa64-hp-hpux11.11: many failures
Most of these are "Type/rank mismatch in argument":
FAIL: gfortran.dg/assumed_charlen_function_5.f90 -O (test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
/test/gnu/gcc/gcc/gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/assumed_charlen_function_5.f90:22: E
rror: Type/rank mismatch in arg
...
> laST_UPDATED: Obtained from SVN: trunk revision 123799
>
> Native configuration is ia64-unknown-linux-gnu
>
> === gcc tests ===
>
>
for this one:
> FAIL: gcc.dg/vect/pr30771.c scan-tree-dump-times vectorized 1 loops 1
there should be { target vect_unpack } added to the check. i.e.:
-
Dorit Nuzman wrote:
FX Coudert wrote:
Hi all,
I reviewed this afternoon the postings from the gcc-testresults
mailing-list for the past month, and we have a couple of gfortran
testsuite failures showing up on various targets. Could people with
access to said targets (possibly maintainers)
> * hppa-unknown-linux-gnu: gfortran.dg/cray_pointers_2.f90
Fails due to timeout (slow system?):
real5m45.735s
user1m33.506s
sys 4m11.716s
I should note that the compilation time doesn't seem consistent from
one run to the next. Here's the detailed breakdown:
GNU F95 version 4.3.0
> FX Coudert wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I reviewed this afternoon the postings from the gcc-testresults
> > mailing-list for the past month, and we have a couple of gfortran
> > testsuite failures showing up on various targets. Could people with
> > access to said targets (possibly maintainers) ple
FX Coudert wrote:
Hi all,
I reviewed this afternoon the postings from the gcc-testresults
mailing-list for the past month, and we have a couple of gfortran
testsuite failures showing up on various targets. Could people with
access to said targets (possibly maintainers) please file PRs in
bug
Dave Korn wrote:
On 12 April 2007 22:22, FX Coudert wrote:
Note2: I also omitted a couple of gfortran.dg/secnds.f failures; this
testcase should be reworked
I was about to report that myself! Both secnds.f /and/ secnds-1.f have some
kind of race condition or indeterminacy.
It's an indeter
> * powerpc-apple-darwin8.5.0: gfortran.dg/edit_real_1.f90
I don't see these failures on my weekly snapshot build on OSX 10.3.9
(nor in a month old build on OSX 10.4.8 or 9, cannot remember).
Could it be related to 10.4.5 gcc failures gcc.dg/torture/builtin-pow-mpfr-1.c
and gcc.dg/torture/builtin-
On 12 April 2007 22:22, FX Coudert wrote:
> Hi all,
> Note2: I also omitted a couple of gfortran.dg/secnds.f failures; this
> testcase should be reworked
I was about to report that myself! Both secnds.f /and/ secnds-1.f have some
kind of race condition or indeterminacy.
cheers,
Da
FX Coudert wrote:
wrt to the Subject of the mail, I'm not sure "Call to arms" means what I
thought it meant, after all... I really wanted it to sound like "call
for help" or "call for more arms". Sorry if there was any confusion in
the tone.
FX
I thought it was great!
Jerry
FX Coudert wrote:
wrt to the Subject of the mail, I'm not sure "Call to arms" means
what I thought it meant, after all... I really wanted it to sound
like "call for help" or "call for more arms". Sorry if there was any
confusion in the tone.
The literal meaning of "call to arms" is a call
wrt to the Subject of the mail, I'm not sure "Call to arms" means
what I thought it meant, after all... I really wanted it to sound
like "call for help" or "call for more arms". Sorry if there was any
confusion in the tone.
FX
Hi all,
I reviewed this afternoon the postings from the gcc-testresults
mailing-list for the past month, and we have a couple of gfortran
testsuite failures showing up on various targets. Could people with
access to said targets (possibly maintainers) please file PRs in
bugzilla for each
15 matches
Mail list logo
