Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@sources.redhat.com X-Authentication-Warning: hp2.xraylith.wisc.edu: khan owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 17:23:49 -0500 (CDT) From: Mumit Khan To: ted byers cc: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: building gcc/g++ seems OK but building g77 seems to be seriously broken In-Reply-To: <002d01c10f06$2987ca70$2371e740@beak.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, ted byers wrote: > Well, I have now built GCC3 a couple times, trying to figure out what has > gone awry, but nothing seems to fix g77 (the summary given below show why I > think it is seriously broken). gcc and g++ seem to be OK since their > respective test suites give the expected results (the number of unexpected > failures being extemely small). When you report gcc build problems, you really need to provide the flags you passed to configure. Too many variables otherwise. > === g77 Summary === > > # of expected passes 281 > # of unexpected failures 334 > # of untested testcases 326 > /home/Bted/Objects/gcc/g77 g77 version 3.0 (Fortran Frontend version 0.5.26 > 20010617 (experimental)) Probably a problem in the g77 tests, which passes the -lm, and that causes a problem on Cygwin 1.1.x. Regards, Mumit -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/