From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!8nKyDL3nVTTIdBB8axZhRA.user.46.165.242.75.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Simon Wright Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: GCC updated in NetBSD! Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2021 09:14:15 +0100 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="35427"; posting-host="8nKyDL3nVTTIdBB8axZhRA.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org"; User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (darwin) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ijl+ROLCr4S1lBs35VzRQhd0RGk= Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:63043 List-Id: "Randy Brukardt" writes: > "Simon Wright" wrote in message > news:lyzgr3h0t2.fsf@pushface.org... > ... >> *** FAILURES: c250002 c324006 c35503d c35503f c415001 c611a04 cxaib05 >> cxaib08 cxd1003 cxd1004 cxd1005 cxd2006 cxd3001 cxd3002 >> > ... >> C35503D GCC 11 supports 128-bit integers >> C35503F likewise > > These two are "macro" tests, such that one is supposed to modify the > values in the Macro.Dfs file and regenerate these tests with the > correct values. If the compiler supports 128-bit integers, then those > values would be different (and a lot longer) than the values for > 64-bit integers. They could of course fail for some other reason, but > getting those values wrong in the original substitution is bad. Yes; what happens in the GCC version is that MACRO.DFS gets regenerated from a template version during setup. I missed a change made 14 months ago, i.e. in preparaton for GCC 11, in which (for 64-bit targets) the expected max/min_int are set to 128-bit values.