This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Results for 2.16.90 20050314 testsuite on sparc-unknown-linux-gnu


Aurora SPARC Linux release 2.0 (Kashmir FC3) UltraSparc IIi (Sabre) sun4u:

binutils-2.15.92.0.2-5.sparc
bison-1.875c-2.sparc
dejagnu-1.4.4-2.noarch
expect-5.42.1-1.sparc
gcc-3.4.2-6.fc3.sparc
gcc4-4.0.0-0.8sparc.sparc
glibc-2.3.3-99.sparc64
glibc-2.3.3-99.sparcv9
glibc-devel-2.3.3-99.sparc
glibc-headers-2.3.3-99.sparc64
glibc-kernheaders-2.6-20sparc.sparc
kernel-2.6.11-1.1166sp1.sparc64
package kernel-devel is not installed
package kernel-smp is not installed
libgcc-3.4.2-6.fc3.sparc
libgcc-3.4.2-6.fc3.sparc64
libstdc++-3.4.2-6.fc3.sparc64
libstdc++-3.4.2-6.fc3.sparc
libstdc++-devel-3.4.2-6.fc3.sparc64
libstdc++-devel-3.4.2-6.fc3.sparc
make-3.80-5.sparc
nptl-devel-2.3.3-99.sparcv9
tcl-8.4.7-2.sparc

LAST_UPDATED: Mon Mar 14 09:07:35 UTC 2005

Native configuration is sparc-unknown-linux-gnu

		=== binutils tests ===


Running target unix

		=== binutils Summary ===

# of expected passes		33
		=== gas tests ===


Running target unix

		=== gas Summary ===

# of expected passes		88
		=== ld tests ===


Running target unix

		=== ld Summary ===

# of expected passes		238
# of expected failures		5

version: 2.16.90 20050314
Platform: sparc-unknown-linux-gnu
configure flags: sparc-linux --enable-__cxa_atexit --enable-shared --enable-build-warnings=-Wall,-Wstrict-prototypes,-Wmissing-prototypes --enable-64-bit-bfd
Counting all warnings,
there are 35 warnings in stage0 of this bootstrap.

Number of warnings per file:
     10 /usr/local/src/trunk/src/binutils/bucomm.c
     10 libiberty/concat.c
      6 libiberty/regex.c
      4 /usr/local/src/trunk/src/ld/ldexp.c
      2 libiberty/pex-unix.c
      2 include/xregex2.h
      1 /usr/local/src/trunk/src/gprof/gmon_io.c

Number of warning types:
     10 traditional C rejects ISO C style function definitions
     10 the use of \`???' is dangerous, better use \`???'
      6 signed and unsigned type in conditional expression
      3 \`???' is used uninitialized in this function
      2 variable \`???' might be clobbered by \`???' or \`???'
      2 \`???' may be used uninitialized in this function
      2 ISO C90 does not support \`???' or type qualifiers in parameter array declarators


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]