This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Release 2.22: Next week ...
- From: Tristan Gingold <gingold at adacore dot com>
- To: James Murray <jsm at jsm-net dot demon dot co dot uk>
- Cc: binutils at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 10:35:25 +0100
- Subject: Re: Release 2.22: Next week ...
- References: <ADFB3A72-FDFA-4402-A6D5-CADEA94D0ED2@adacore.com> <1324230304.8652.3.camel@jsm2>
On Dec 18, 2011, at 6:45 PM, James Murray wrote:
> On 17/11/11 14:50, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>
> References: <ADFB3A72-FDFA-4402-A6D5-CADEA94D0ED2@adacore.com>
> <1747C46F-9EE9-4FE6-B84C-09DC53F21DE0@adacore.com>
> <2E7397C5-D6E3-4DEC-812E-156DEBA441A8@adacore.com>
>
>> I have run the testsuite for most of the targets.
>> m68hc11-elf: OK
>
> Seems ok, but what about the sub-targets? They fail the test-suite.
> m68hc11-elf PASS
> m68hc12-elf - 10 gas failures
> m6811-elf - 5 gas failures
> m6812-elf - 15 gas failures
Clearly there are targets and sub targets that I don't test.
> Does this matter? Should the tests only be run with the 'main' target?
It is of course better to test as many targets as you can when submitting patches.
> I believe the following patch resolves the 10 gas failures on
> m68hc12-elf, the hc11 tests were being run without a target specified,
> so will only work if the target is built as m68hc11. When they then run
> as hc12 they do not spit out the expected error as those operands/modess
> are valid on hc12.
I don't know the m6811/12 targets, so I can't comment quickly.
These targets look to be almost unmaintained for a while so fell free to take the lead!
> ###########################
> diff -Nuar -x '.#*' -x CVS src/gas/testsuite/gas/m68hc11/m68hc11.exp
> binutils-20111216/gas/testsuite/gas/m68hc11/m68hc11.exp
> --- src/gas/testsuite/gas/m68hc11/m68hc11.exp 2004-08-01
> 20:59:51.000000000 +0100
> +++ binutils-20111216/gas/testsuite/gas/m68hc11/m68hc11.exp 2011-12-17
> 02:07:50.000000000 +0000
[..]
> # ------------------
> ###########################
>
> However, resolving those then exposes 10 test failures in ld. I have not
> yet investigated those.
>
> My reason for asking is that I have some work to submit on the m68hc11
> target and don't want to be rejected on these testsuite failures.
> (My previous attempt at submission in Feb/Mar did expose some genuine
> regressions which I have since corrected.)
The maintainer will take the decision.
> regards
>
> James Murray
>
> PS. I hope the References works ok, I find it tricky to reply with
> correct headers when I receive only the digest and the online version
> doesn't display the Message-id. Any tips?
Disable to digest option ? Use the archive web page ?
Tristan.