On 01/08/18 09:54, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Aug 01, 2018 at 09:48:50AM +0100, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: >> Sorry about that, I did run a full bootstrap on x86, but I had the x86 >> mitigation patch applied, so it didn't trip this. > > Also, I see > FAIL: c-c++-common/spec-barrier-1.c -Wc++-compat (test for excess errors) > FAIL: c-c++-common/spec-barrier-1.c -std=gnu++11 (test for excess errors) > FAIL: c-c++-common/spec-barrier-1.c -std=gnu++14 (test for excess errors) > FAIL: c-c++-common/spec-barrier-1.c -std=gnu++98 (test for excess errors) > If some targets are expected to emit a warning on this test and you don't > want to maintain exact list of targets which warn in the testsuite, > shouldn't the test use -w in dg-options? > > Jakub >
As explained (both here on the list and in the test). This is deliberate. The test is expected to fail on targets that have not yet been updated to state what action (including nothing needed) is needed to mitigate against speculation vulnerabilities. I'll create a set of bugzilla entries shortly, and a meta bug to hold them, to track each unfixed port's status. A major reason for this test is avoid having ports silently ignore the problem. R.
