Re: Bug#755295: Hurd term server (was: Hurd GCC ping)

[Samuel Thibault]

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