This is the mail archive of the
cygwin
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Fwd: [gcc] FYI, libffi FAILs with cygwin snapshot 20100205, 20100207 & 20100210...
- From: Christian Joensson <christian dot joensson at gmail dot com>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 07:40:17 +0100
- Subject: Fwd: [gcc] FYI, libffi FAILs with cygwin snapshot 20100205, 20100207 & 20100210...
maybe this would have been appropriate, sorry for the other postings...
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Christian Joensson
Date: 2010/2/10
Subject: Re: [gcc] FYI, libffi FAILs with cygwin snapshot 20100207 & 20100210...
To: cygwin-developers@cygwin.com
Kopia: Dave Korn <dave.korn.cygwin@googlemail.com>
2010/2/10 Christian Joensson:
> 2010/2/10 Christian Joensson:
>> Maybe(?) I should have posted here instead of e-mailing Dave privately...
>>
>> /ChJ
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Christian Joensson
>> Date: 2010/2/10
>> Subject: [gcc] FYI, libffi FAILs with cygwin snapshot 20100207 & 20100210...
>> To: Dave Korn
>>
>>
>> Just FYI... the latest posted test results, at
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2010-02/msg00907.html, shows a
>> substatntial amount of FAILs for libffi, this is with cygwin1.dll
>> snapshot 20100207 (I also checked briefly using 20100210, also gives a
>> lot of FAILs in libffi), rolling back to cygwin1.dll of 1.7.1-1, the
>> results are back to normal.. Something crept up between 1.7.1-1 and
>> 20100207 snapshot that simply makes a mess with libffi test results.
>> That's the FYI...
>>
>
> A "diff ../../../objdir-156618/libffi.log testsuite/libffi.log" (where
> the first file is the log file when using the cygwin1.dll snapshot
> 20100207 and the second file is using the 1.7.1-1 one) gives me this
> (as an example):
>
> 1c1
> < Test Run By chj on Tue Feb ?9 13:17:04 2010
> ---
>> Test Run By chj on Wed Feb 10 11:39:41 2010
> 115,118c115,118
> < 7 8. 9 1 9. 3: 8 17. 12
> < res: 8 17. 12
> < 7 8. 9 1 9. 3: 8 17. 12
> < res: 8 17. 12
> ---
>> 7 8 9 1 9 3: 8 17 12
>> res: 8 17 12
>> 7 8 9 1 9 3: 8 17 12
>> res: 8 17 12
>
>
> Note the crept in "." (dot) which is symptomatic for the situation...
> if this rings a bell in anyone's ear?
well, maybe this never shows up on cygwin developers' list.. but
20100204 works... 20100205 doesn't...
--
Cheers,
/ChJ
--
Cheers,
/ChJ
--
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple