Sunday Project gdb test results, 2001-03-31

[Michael Elizabeth Chastain <chastain at cygnus dot com>]

Here are my Sunday Project results for 2001-03-31.

  Red Hat Linux 6.2 native:

    === gdb Summary ===
    # of ERRORs                     0
    # of WARNINGs                   0
    # of expected passes            6585
    # of unexpected failures        119
    # of unexpected successes       11
    # of expected failures          183
    # of untested testcases         19

  Red Hat Linux 7.0 native:

    === gdb Summary ===
    # of ERRORs                     0
    # of WARNINGs                   0
    # of expected passes            6635
    # of unexpected failures        114
    # of unexpected successes       11
    # of expected failures          182
    # of untested testcases         18

  Solaris 2.5.1 native:

    === gdb Summary ===
    # of ERRORs                     4
    # of WARNINGs                   2
    # of expected passes            6624
    # of unexpected failures        103
    # of unexpected successes       11
    # of expected failures          155
    # of unresolved testcases       34
    # of untested testcases         19

I ran the tests with FSF gcc cvs gcc-3_0-branch 2001-03-31 and FSF gdb
cvs 2001-03-31.  I counted the ERROR and WARNING lines by hand inspection
of the summary files.

All results are in Terf, http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/gdb.cgi .
Note that Terf does not report ERRORs or WARNINGs.  Also, Terf has
problems with duplicate test names.

The merged results for all platforms contain 4 ERRORs, 2 WARNINGs,
and 128 FAILs.

Here are the merged ERRORs categorized by test script:

      4 TOTAL
      = =====
      4 gdb.c++/userdef.exp

Here are the merged WARNINGs categorized by test script:

      2 TOTAL
      = =====
      2 gdb.c++/userdef.exp

Here are the merged FAILs categorized by test script:

    128 TOTAL
    === =====
     31 gdb.c++/virtfunc.exp
     18 gdb.c++/classes.exp
     11 gdb.base/callfwmall.exp
      8 gdb.c++/cplusfuncs.exp
      7 gdb.c++/templates.exp
      6 gdb.c++/overload.exp
      6 gdb.c++/inherit.exp
      6 gdb.base/step-line.exp
      5 gdb.c++/namespace.exp
      4 gdb.c++/method.exp
      4 gdb.c++/derivation.exp
      3 gdb.threads/pthreads.exp
      3 gdb.c++/local.exp
      2 gdb.c++/annota2.exp
      2 gdb.base/structs2.exp
      2 gdb.base/selftest.exp
      2 gdb.base/return2.exp
      2 gdb.base/ending-run.exp
      1 gdb.trace/packetlen.exp
      1 gdb.stabs/weird.exp
      1 gdb.java/jmisc.exp
      1 gdb.c++/userdef.exp
      1 gdb.c++/demangle.exp
      1 gdb.base/exprs.exp

Changes from 2001-03-24:

  2001-03-24 total           4 ERRORs
  gdb.c++/userdef.exp       -4 ERRORs   g++ bug fixed
  gdb.c++/userdef.exp       +4 ERRORs   new g++ bug
  2001-03-31 total           4 ERRORs

  2001-03-24 total           2 WARNINGs
  gdb.c++/userdef.exp       -2 WARNINGs g++ bug fixed
  gdb.c++/userdef.exp       +2 WARNINGs new g++ bug
  2001-03-31 total           2 WARNINGs

  2001-03-24 total         120 FAILs
  gdb.base/step-line.exp    +6 FAILs    new test script
  gdb.c++/userdef.exp       +1 FAILs    was ERROR -- g++ bug fixed 
  gdb.c++/virtfunc.exp      +1 FAILs    was ERROR -- g++ bug fixed
  2001-03-31 total         128 FAILs

Last week's g++ compiler bug has been fixed.  This shifts some ERRORs and
WARNINGs back to FAILs on some platforms (userdef.exp and virtfunc.exp).

There is a new g++ compilation failure this week.  The new bug appears
on Solaris 2.5.1, but not on Red Hat Linux 6.2 or Red Hat Linux 7.
I will investigate this.  The error messages are:

  horton/chastain/fsf/2001-03-31/source/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/sbuf_iter.h:102: undefined reference to `std::errno'
  /horton/chastain/fsf/2001-03-31/source/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/sbuf_iter.h:102: undefined reference to `std::errno'
  /horton/chastain/fsf/2001-03-31/source/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/sbuf_iter.h:102: undefined reference to `std::errno'
  /horton/chastain/fsf/2001-03-31/source/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/sbuf_iter.h:102: undefined reference to `std::errno'
  ...

There is a new test script this week, gdb.base/step-line.exp, and it brings
some new FAILs (which means that the script is doing its job).  I will file
a PR.