On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 01:22:39PM +0100, Rainer Orth wrote:
> 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?
In the newest 300 matches on gcc-testresults,
XPASS: g++.dg/tls/thread_local-order2.C -std=c++14 execution
test
appears for the following targets:
s390
s390x
i386-unknown-freebsd10.3
i686-pc-linux-gnu
x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
x86_64-apple-darwin16.4.0
x86_64-unknown-freebsd12.0
powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu
powerpc-ibm-aix7.2.0.0
aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu
aarch64-suse-linux-gnu
hppa-unknown-linux-gnu
armv6-unknown-freebsd12.0
target:arm-none-linux-gnueabi, host:i686-pc-linux-gnu
target:m68k-unknown-linux-gnu; host:x86_64-suse-linux-gnu
target:sh4-unknown-linux-gnu; host:i686-pc-linux-gnu
Ciao
Dominik ^_^ ^_^
--
Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany
