https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68867
--- Comment #17 from Steve Kargl <sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu> --- On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 08:52:19PM +0000, wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org wrote: > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68867 > > --- Comment #16 from Bill Schmidt <wschmidt at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > Hm, but comment #8 from PR24685 indicates that this is clearly a regression. > At that time Andrew Pinski asserted that this failure was restricted to > Darwin, > and powerpc*-linux didn't fail the test. > I prefer the sentiments of comment #2 from PR61399. Perhaps, the test passed on powerpc*-linux because it was a poorly defined test for that target and ppc*linux got lucky. But, I'll restate the obvious from my comment #15. Given the lack of details regarding the nature of the failure, xfailing the testcase is the only option. Or in other words, we can't fix something that is poorly defined. So, the only solution is to sweep it under the rug.
