https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=112531
palmer at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last reconfirmed| |2023-11-21
Ever confirmed|0 |1
CC| |palmer at gcc dot gnu.org
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
--- Comment #5 from palmer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Robin Dapp from comment #4)
> Personally, I don't mind having some FAILs as long as we know them and
> understand the reason for them. I wouldn't insist on "fixing" them but
> don't mind if others prefer to have the results "clean". Probably a matter
> of taste.
IIUC every target still has some FAILs, so it's kind of just par for the
course. That said, if we're going to put the work into root causing the
failure far enough to determine it's invalid then we're most of the way to just
making the failure disappear. I guess it's a little more work upfront, but
otherwise everyone has to maintain some list of "tests that FAIL, but we're
ignoring". We had some of that in the riscv-gnu-toolchain allowlist, but even
then it becomes clunky to maintain.
So I think we're unlikely to ever get them all, but at least for the ones that
are somewhat easy to root cause I think we might as well just fix them. I just
sent along a fix for this one:
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gcc-patches/20231121232704.12336-5-pal...@rivosinc.com/
