Release 2.23: Ping

[Tristan Gingold]

On Sep 5, 2012, at 10:54 AM, Matthew Gretton-Dann wrote:

> On 5 September 2012 01:56, Maciej W. Rozycki <macro@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 4 Sep 2012, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
>> 
>> Here's the resulting list of regressions:
>> 
>> arm-aout  +FAIL: Valid v8-a+cryptov1
>> arm-aout  +FAIL: Valid v8-a+fp
>> arm-aout  +FAIL: Valid v8-a+simdv3
>> arm-aout  +FAIL: Valid v8-A barrier (ARM)
>> arm-aout  +FAIL: Valid v8-A barrier (Thumb)
>> arm-aout  +FAIL: Valid v8-a
>> arm-coff  +FAIL: Valid v8-a+cryptov1
>> arm-coff  +FAIL: Valid v8-a+fp
>> arm-coff  +FAIL: Valid v8-a+simdv3
>> arm-coff  +FAIL: Valid v8-A barrier (Thumb)
>> arm-epoc-pe  +FAIL: Valid v8-a+cryptov1
>> arm-epoc-pe  +FAIL: Valid v8-a+fp
>> arm-epoc-pe  +FAIL: Valid v8-a+simdv3
>> arm-epoc-pe  +FAIL: Valid v8-A barrier (Thumb)
>> arm-pe  +FAIL: Valid v8-a+cryptov1
>> arm-pe  +FAIL: Valid v8-a+fp
>> arm-pe  +FAIL: Valid v8-a+simdv3
>> arm-pe  +FAIL: Valid v8-A barrier (Thumb)
>> arm-wince-pe  +FAIL: Valid v8-a+cryptov1
>> arm-wince-pe  +FAIL: Valid v8-a+fp
>> arm-wince-pe  +FAIL: Valid v8-a+simdv3
>> arm-wince-pe  +FAIL: Valid v8-A barrier (Thumb)
> 
> I'll take a look at these.
> 
> I don't think they should necessarily hold up the release though as
> the EABI targets (arm-none-eabi, arm-none-linux-gnueabi) all pass
> these tests for me.

Fine.

As always, it would be nice to have clean regression output.  Thank you for working to that!

OTOH, these regressions look to be aarch64/armv8 specific, so aren't real regression compared to 2.22 IIUC.

Tristan.