[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [avr-gcc-list] Improving in leaps and skips!

From: E. Weddington
Subject: Re: [avr-gcc-list] Improving in leaps and skips!
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2005 12:00:22 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.3 (Windows/20040803)

Björn Haase wrote:

Am Dienstag, 1. März 2005 18:16 schrieb E. Weddington:
Björn Haase wrote:
FYI: I presently observe around 491 testsuite failures only, most of
them due to missing nested function support and missing support of
library functions like sprintf() for operations that are not important
for avr.
That's interesting. avr-libc has the sprintf() function. Do those tests
need to be conditionally rewritten so they will properly execute for

I would have to look after it in detail for each individual case, but in most cases that I have investigated so far, it was an error that showed up when passing, e.g., a long double to sprintf or, e.g., an unsigned long long. ... Instead of handling also these cases in the avr-libc, I'd rather consider to start with marking these testcases as "xfail". I, e.g., don't feel that anybody whithin the avr community will miss long double support for sprintf for quite a while :-) ...
Ah. I completely agree.

Concerning the test suite it will require some tedious work to remove all the obsolete or irrelevant failures. I have started with doing this for 3.4.3, but I will have to redo most of the work for 4.0.0: the 4.0.0 testsuite harness is much improved and much better documented than it used to. I meanwhile already have opened a thread on gcc-patches and already got a response on the style the testsuite magic comments are expected to be generated in future.

Thank you so much for doing this for 3.4.3 and for 4.0!

Most important work will be the definition of a new switch with the working title "no_nested_function_support" that makes it possible to remove all those related bugs. I thing that at least 300 of the remaining 491 failing test cases would be skipped this way.

I'm not familiar with the test suite, and I'm curious: Where do these "nested functions" tests come from? That's not a C language feature. Is it C++?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]