Bug#755295: Hurd term server (was: Hurd GCC ping)
- To: Thomas Schwinge <thomas@codesourcery.com>, 755295@bugs.debian.org, bug-hurd@gnu.org, Roland McGrath <roland@hack.frob.com>, Matthias Klose <doko@ubuntu.com>, Thomas Bushnell <tb@becket.net>, marcus.brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de, Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org>
- Subject: Bug#755295: Hurd term server (was: Hurd GCC ping)
- From: Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org>
- Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2015 19:17:14 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20150209181714.GA26437@type.bordeaux.inria.fr>
- Mail-followup-to: Thomas Schwinge <thomas@codesourcery.com>, 755295@bugs.debian.org, bug-hurd@gnu.org, Roland McGrath <roland@hack.frob.com>, Matthias Klose <doko@ubuntu.com>, Thomas Bushnell <tb@becket.net>, marcus.brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de, Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org>
- Reply-to: Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org>, 755295@bugs.debian.org
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20150209170843.GA18278@type.bordeaux.inria.fr>
- References: <53CAA84C.6080301@debian.org> <53EDFDC1.9050205@ubuntu.com> <87vbpogj0r.fsf@schwinge.name> <87iojtpi1s.fsf@kepler.schwinge.homeip.net> <20141102171311.GS2991@type.youpi.perso.aquilenet.fr> <87twzoxd3b.fsf@kepler.schwinge.homeip.net> <20150118210349.GK2957@type.youpi.perso.aquilenet.fr> <[🔎] 20150209170333.GA17668@type.bordeaux.inria.fr> <[🔎] 20150209170843.GA18278@type.bordeaux.inria.fr>
Samuel Thibault, le Mon 09 Feb 2015 18:08:43 +0100, a écrit :
> Samuel Thibault, le Mon 09 Feb 2015 18:03:33 +0100, a écrit :
> > by comparing the first test passes, I can confirm that there are *WAY*
> > fewer failures with this workaround in place.
>
> And the few dozen failures I have seen so far also happen with the i386
> build.
=== gcc Summary for unix ===
# of expected passes 108671
# of unexpected failures 124
# of unexpected successes 17
# of expected failures 276
# of unresolved testcases 1
# of unsupported tests 1496
To be compared with i386:
=== gcc Summary for unix ===
# of expected passes 115039
# of unexpected failures 94
# of unexpected successes 17
# of expected failures 324
# of unsupported tests 1723
The difference is essentially a few limits-fndefn.c failures, some
cleanup-*.c failures and two dozen failures with only largefile.c (which
I guess is about LFS).
So I'd tend to think that it's relatively good and we can reassign the
issue with tcl/expect.
Samuel
Reply to: