On 2018-05-04 11:08 -0400, Dennis Clarke wrote: > > AFAIK on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, I think we can only ignore some FAILs in > > gcc.dg/guality. They use GDB and the result (debugger output) tends to > > be wrong with optimization. Other tests should not FAIL. > > > > > > My result was sent: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2018-05/msg00374.html > > # of unexpected failures 72 > > That looks really good. > > > > > I don't have platforms other than x86_64-pc-linux-gnu (though I may buy > > a mips64 in 2019). > > I have builds going now on ppc64 and sparc64. > > Dennis New result on 8.2: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2018-08/msg00023.html. 72 FAILs and 20 XPASS doesn't change. And, there are two new FAILs in g++.dg: > FAIL: g++.dg/pr83239.C -std=gnu++11 scan-tree-dump-not optimized "_ZNSt6vectorIiSaIiEE17_M_default_appendEm" > FAIL: g++.dg/pr83239.C -std=gnu++14 scan-tree-dump-not optimized "_ZNSt6vectorIiSaIiEE17_M_default_appendEm" due to PR86153. The reason is, the test is fragile and affected by changes in libstdc++. Not serious. BTW I'm switching to a personal mail server because the mail server of the university keeps doing stupid things. -- Xi Ruoyao <xry111@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
