On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 03:09:02PM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 12/14/2017 02:47 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 02:40:12PM +0100, Tom de Vries wrote:
> > > --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/visibility-22.c
> > > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/visibility-22.c
> > > @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
> > > /* PR target/32219 */
> > > /* { dg-do run } */
> > > /* { dg-require-visibility "" } */
> > > +/* { dg-require-effective-target weak_undefined } */
> > > /* { dg-options "-O2 -fPIC" { target fpic } } */
> > > /* This test requires support for undefined weak symbols. This support
> > > is not available on hppa*-*-hpux*. The test is skipped rather than
> >
> > Shouldn't then the:
> > /* This test requires support for undefined weak symbols. This support
> > is not available on hppa*-*-hpux*. The test is skipped rather than
> > xfailed to suppress the warning that would otherwise arise. */
> > /* { dg-skip-if "" { "hppa*-*-hpux*" "*-*-aix*" "*-*-darwin*" } } */
> > stuff be dropped too?
>
> I don't know whether the new effective target test will fail for each of
> these 3 targets. But the warning mentioned for hppa*-*-hpux* will make the
> effective target test fail, so I think that one can be removed.
Or you can remove all 3, and if unsure, just add those to the weak_undefined
effective target (return 0 for them). And ask target maintainers to verify
and perhaps remove.
Jakub
