Lee Rhodes wrote:
Brian, Tim,
Thanks to you both for your instructive replies!
I would appreciate if you would glance at the attached test_summary and
validate for me
a) that all the C/C++/lib tests that were supposed to run on cygwin, have
run, and
b) that the results are what is currently expected for this environment.
Thanks,
Lee.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
cat <<'EOF' |
from: lee@xxxxxxxxx
LAST_UPDATED: Obtained from SVN: tags/gcc_4_2_0_release revision 124707
Native configuration is i686-pc-cygwin
=== g++ tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: g++.dg/abi/local1.C execution test
FAIL: g++.dg/abi/rtti1.C scan-assembler-dem-not \\ntypeinfo for A[: \\t\\n]
FAIL: g++.dg/abi/rtti3.C scan-assembler .weak[ \\t]_?_ZTSPP1A
FAIL: g++.dg/abi/thunk4.C scan-assembler .weak[ \\t]_?_ZThn._N7Derived3FooEv
FAIL: g++.dg/ext/dllimport7.C C++ specific error (test for errors, line 24)
FAIL: g++.dg/opt/complex3.C (internal compiler error)
FAIL: g++.dg/opt/complex3.C (test for excess errors)
FAIL: g++.dg/opt/vt1.C scan-assembler-not section[^\\n\\r]*_ZTV1S[^\\n\\r]*"[^w"\\n\\r]*"
FAIL: g++.dg/other/unused1.C scan-assembler (string|ascii?)z?\\t"class2("|\\\\\\\\000)
FAIL: g++.dg/other/unused1.C scan-assembler (string|ascii?)z?\\t"printer("|\\\\\\\\000)
XPASS: g++.dg/tree-ssa/ivopts-1.C scan-tree-dump-not offset: -4B
XPASS: g++.dg/tree-ssa/ivopts-1.C scan-tree-dump-not &x\\[5\\]
FAIL: g++.dg/pch/externc-1.C -g assembly comparison
FAIL: g++.dg/pch/externc-1.C -O2 -g assembly comparison
FAIL: g++.dg/pch/static-1.C -g assembly comparison
FAIL: g++.dg/pch/static-1.C -O2 -g assembly comparison
FAIL: g++.dg/pch/system-1.C -g assembly comparison
FAIL: g++.dg/pch/system-1.C -O2 -g assembly comparison
FAIL: g++.dg/pch/system-2.C -g assembly comparison
FAIL: g++.dg/pch/system-2.C -O2 -g assembly comparison
FAIL: g++.dg/pch/uninst.C -g assembly comparison
FAIL: g++.dg/pch/uninst.C -O2 -g assembly comparison
FAIL: g++.dg/pch/wchar-1.C -g assembly comparison
FAIL: g++.dg/pch/wchar-1.C -O2 -g assembly comparison
FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.eh/badalloc1.C execution test
XPASS: g++.old-deja/g++.ext/attrib5.C execution test
FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.other/init18.C execution test
FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.other/init19.C execution test
FAIL: g++.old-deja/g++.other/init5.C execution test
=== g++ Summary ===
# of expected passes 13574
# of unexpected failures 26
# of unexpected successes 3
# of expected failures 66
# of unsupported tests 168
/home/rhodes/src/gcc-obj/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../g++ version 4.2.0
=== gcc tests ===
Running target unix
XPASS: gcc.c-torture/execute/mayalias-2.c compilation, -O3 -g
FAIL: gcc.dg/20021014-1.c (test for excess errors)
WARNING: gcc.dg/20021014-1.c compilation failed to produce executable
FAIL: gcc.dg/pr25993.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/setjmp-3.c (test for excess errors)
WARNING: gcc.dg/setjmp-3.c compilation failed to produce executable
FAIL: gcc.dg/setjmp-4.c (test for excess errors)
WARNING: gcc.dg/setjmp-4.c compilation failed to produce executable
FAIL: largefile.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: largefile.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: largefile.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: largefile.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: largefile.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: largefile.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: largefile.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: gcc.dg/tree-ssa/loop-1.c scan-assembler-times foo 5
FAIL: compiler driver --coverage option(s) (compiler options)
FAIL: gcc.target/i386/pic-1.c (test for errors, line 10)
=== gcc Summary ===
# of expected passes 43665
# of unexpected failures 14
# of unexpected successes 1
# of expected failures 114
# of untested testcases 35
# of unsupported tests 361
/home/rhodes/src/gcc-obj/gcc/xgcc version 4.2.0
=== libstdc++ tests ===
Running target unix
FAIL: 26_numerics/cmath/c99_classification_macros_c.cc (test for excess errors)
FAIL: 27_io/basic_filebuf/seekoff/char/1-io.cc execution test
FAIL: 27_io/basic_filebuf/seekoff/char/1-io.cc execution test
FAIL: 27_io/basic_filebuf/seekoff/char/2-io.cc execution test
FAIL: 27_io/basic_filebuf/seekoff/char/2-io.cc execution test
FAIL: 27_io/basic_filebuf/seekpos/char/1-io.cc execution test
FAIL: 27_io/basic_filebuf/seekpos/char/1-io.cc execution test
FAIL: 27_io/basic_filebuf/seekpos/char/2-io.cc execution test
FAIL: 27_io/basic_filebuf/seekpos/char/2-io.cc execution test
FAIL: 27_io/basic_filebuf/sgetn/char/1-in.cc execution test
FAIL: 27_io/basic_filebuf/sgetn/char/1-in.cc execution test
FAIL: 27_io/basic_filebuf/sgetn/char/1-in.cc execution test
FAIL: 27_io/basic_filebuf/sgetn/char/1-io.cc execution test
FAIL: 27_io/basic_filebuf/sgetn/char/1-io.cc execution test
FAIL: 27_io/basic_filebuf/sgetn/char/1-io.cc execution test
FAIL: 27_io/basic_filebuf/sgetn/char/2-in.cc execution test
FAIL: 27_io/basic_filebuf/sgetn/char/2-in.cc execution test
FAIL: 27_io/basic_filebuf/sgetn/char/2-in.cc execution test
FAIL: 27_io/basic_filebuf/sgetn/char/2-io.cc execution test
FAIL: 27_io/basic_filebuf/sgetn/char/2-io.cc execution test
FAIL: 27_io/basic_filebuf/sgetn/char/2-io.cc execution test
FAIL: 27_io/basic_istream/extractors_arithmetic/char/12.cc execution test
FAIL: 27_io/basic_istream/extractors_arithmetic/char/12.cc execution test
FAIL: 27_io/basic_istream/extractors_arithmetic/char/12.cc execution test
FAIL: 27_io/basic_istream/readsome/char/6746-2.cc execution test
FAIL: 27_io/basic_istream/readsome/char/6746-2.cc execution test
FAIL: 27_io/basic_istream/readsome/char/6746-2.cc execution test
FAIL: ext/pb_ds/example/priority_queue_dijkstra.cc execution test
FAIL: ext/pb_ds/example/priority_queue_dijkstra.cc execution test
=== libstdc++ Summary ===
# of expected passes 6952
# of unexpected failures 29
# of expected failures 31
# of unsupported tests 439
Compiler version: 4.2.0
Platform: i686-pc-cygwin
configure flags: --prefix=/usr/local/gcc-4.2.0 --enable-languages=c,c++
EOF
Mail -s "Results for 4.2.0 testsuite on i686-pc-cygwin" gcc-testresults@xxxxxxxxxxx &&
true
As it has been a while since anyone has posted 4.2.0 testsuite for
cygwin, your comparison against past posted results for 4.2 (and more
recently, 4.3.0) is as good as mine. Your results look reasonable.
Once in a very long time (like 2 years or so) someone familiar with the
particular tests may ask for more specific detail.
