"Paul C. Leopardi" <leopardi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Hi, > Answers and many questions below. > Best regards > > On Tuesday 04 May 2004 02:08, llewelly@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > "Paul C. Leopardi" <leopardi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Hi, > > > I checked versions as you suggested. > > > runtest -V > > > Expect version is 5.38.0 > > > Tcl version is 8.4 > > > Framework version is 1.4.3 > > > > > > I also rebuilt gcc 3.4.0 and re-ran the tests. > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2004-05/msg00137.html > > > > > > I don't understand why the heading is "Results for 3.3.2 20031216 > > > (prerelease) > > > > This is really strange. I guess the dejagnu is running you old g++ > > 3.3.2 instead of the g++ you just built. I can't imagine *why*, > > however. Maybe an alias is interfering? > > I tried the test suite again, after renaming /usr/local/bin > to /usr/local/bin.old, and the test used /usr/bin/g++ this time. > > === g++ Summary === > > # of expected passes 8454 > # of unexpected failures 1404 > # of unexpected successes 7 > # of expected failures 61 > # of unresolved testcases 15 > # of untested testcases 30 > # of unsupported tests 68 > /usr/bin/g++ version 3.3.2 20031216 (prerelease) (SuSE Linux) > > It turns out that I had colorgcc installed and the SuSE rpm had put links > in /usr/local/bin from eg g++ to colorgcc. I haven't had colorgcc installed on any machine I own for over 3 years, so I had totally forgotten about it. But this seems to be only part of the problem; it shouldn't have been using /usr/local/bin/g++ in the first place. > > I uninstalled colorgcc, renamed gcc-3.4.0.obj and ran configure and "make > bootstrap" in a fresh directory, then ran "make -k check" again. > > === g++ Summary === > > # of expected passes 8455 > # of unexpected failures 1403 > # of unexpected successes 7 > # of expected failures 61 > # of unresolved testcases 15 > # of untested testcases 30 > # of unsupported tests 68 > /usr/bin/g++ version 3.3.2 20031216 (prerelease) (SuSE Linux) This is completely mindboggling. Unless you have colorgcc installed in /usr/bin too? > > I think the build must have failed in some cryptic way. > The output from "make bootstrap" is 12.9MB in size! Maybe I'm jumping at shadows, but that sounds a little large ... I have 7028873 bytes (< 7MB) for the output of make boostrap-lean of 3.4.0 (c, objc, c++, java, f77) on i686-freeBSD5.2 . > How do I check it to see > whether it succeeded? I thought that if it went all the way to the end it > must have succeeded? I still think it is more likely that something went wrong with make check than with make bootstrap. Remember, almost all of the libstdc++ tests succeed, and those use the 3.4.0 you just built. So I *think* the newly built g++ binary is ok. It just isn't getting run by 'make check'. > No? > Where does g++ get built to? It should be in objdir/gcc . > What file am I looking for? > How does runtest know where to find g++? I don't know. I seem to lack dejagnu info files for some reason. Could you try aliasing 'runtest' to 'runtest -v' ? > Sorry for all the questions. I am such a noob. Maybe this is all documented > somewhere? > Should I direct these questions to the main gcc mailing list, or one of the > suse mailing lists? > > > > (SuSE Linux) testsuite on x86_64-suse-linux-gnu". I thought I was testing > > > 3.4.0? The test results themselves say, "LAST_UPDATED: Obtained from CVS: > > > -rgcc_3_4_0_release". > > > > > > Anyway, the result is about the same. Over 5000 g++ errors. > > > > > > I must have something configured wrong. What could it be? > > > > [snip]
