--- Comment #11 from sje at cup dot hp dot com 2010-04-14 22:29 ---
I am going to close out this bug report since there are currently no failures
on IA64, only expected failures for libffi.call/err_bad_abi.c and
libffi.call/err_bad_typedef.c which are XFAIL'ed for all platforms.
--
--- Comment #4 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-06-15 09:05 ---
I have applied the following patch on revision 148472
diff -up libffi/testsuite/libffi.call/err_bad_abi.c
/opt/gcc/gcc-4.5-work/libffi/testsuite/libffi.call/err_bad_abi.c
---
--- Comment #5 from aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-15 09:07 ---
That probably is my fault. However, I can't do anything about it until I see
the testsuite log file.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40385
--- Comment #6 from aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-15 09:08 ---
Re http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-06/msg00929.html:
That was answered on Fri, 12 Jun by Kaz Kojima.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=40385
--- Comment #7 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-06-15 09:19 ---
That probably is my fault. However, I can't do anything about it until I see
the testsuite log file.
The log file looks like:
...
Executing on host: /opt/gcc/i686-darwin/gcc/xgcc -B/opt/gcc/i686-darwin/gcc/
--- Comment #8 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-06-15 09:24 ---
That was answered on Fri, 12 Jun by Kaz Kojima.
Not exactly, it answered about some future goal of the tests, but without any
name of platform(s) on which they work. My implicit question is does it make
any sense
--- Comment #9 from aph at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-15 09:29 ---
I need to know why it's crashing. Usually there's some sort of error message.
If there's not, there's no choice but to debug.
This Darwin problem is clearly not the same bug as 40385, so it needs a new
Bugzilla
--- Comment #10 from dominiq at lps dot ens dot fr 2009-06-15 09:42 ---
This Darwin problem is clearly not the same bug as 40385, so it needs a new
Bugzilla entry.
This is now pr40444.
I expect that a patch to xfail err_bad_abi.c on *-*-* would be approved.
Probably
--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-06-13 19:23 ---
As mentioned, this is not a regression, just new testcase changing the summary
and removing the target milestone.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
