Hi Dominik,
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 12:33:21PM +0100, Rainer Orth wrote:
>> > Copying the two guys listed as testsuite maintainers in gcc/MAINTAINERS
>> > may help; let me do that for you.
>> >
>> > That said, if this fails to fail, the patch might be considered obvious,
>> > not requiring a approval?
>>
>> it's not: while it may XPASS with newer glibc versions, it still XFAILs
>> e.g. on Solaris (and probably others).
>
> It's been so long that I cannot tell what the reference to
> glibc-2.18 means. I've only ever tested this on s390 and s390x,
> and the test may or may not PASS on other targets with
> glibc-2.18+.
>
>> So unconditionally removing the
>> xfail *-*-* trades an XPASS->PASS on some Linux versions against a
>> XFAIL->FAIL elsewhere, which isn't acceptable.
>
> Okay, so what would you suggest?
>
> // { dg-do run { xfail !s390*-*-* } }
>
> or
>
> // { dg-do run { xfail *-*-solaris } }
>
> or something else? We'll probably only get this list right by
> trial and error anyway.
how about checking the gcc-testresults archives for XPASSes to get an
idea?
Rainer
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University
