On 21/09/18 02:52 +0200, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 15:22:23 +0100 From: Jonathan Wakely <jwak...@redhat.com>On 20/09/18 15:36 +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote: >On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 at 23:13, Rainer Orth <r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote: >> >> Hi Christophe, >> >> > I have noticed failures on hypot-long-double.cc on arm, so I suggest we add: >> > >> > diff --git >> > a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/26_numerics/headers/cmath/hypot-long-double.cc >> > b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/26_numerics/headers/cmath/hypot-long-double.cc >> > index 8a05473..4c2e33b 100644 >> > --- a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/26_numerics/headers/cmath/hypot-long-double.cc >> > +++ b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/26_numerics/headers/cmath/hypot-long-double.cc >> > @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ >> > >> > // { dg-options "-std=gnu++17" } >> > // { dg-do run { target c++17 } } >> > -// { dg-xfail-run-if "PR 78179" { powerpc-ibm-aix* hppa-*-linux* nios2-*-* } } >> > +// { dg-xfail-run-if "PR 78179" { powerpc-ibm-aix* hppa-*-linux* >> > nios2-*-* arm*-*-* } } >> > >> > // Run the long double tests from hypot.cc separately, because they fail on a >> > // number of targets. See PR libstdc++/78179 for details. >> > >> > OK? >> >> just a nit (and not a review): I'd prefer the target list to be sorted >> alphabetically, not completely random. >> > >Sure, I can sort the whole list, if OK on principle. Yes, please go ahead and commit it with the sorted list."Me too". Can I please, rather than piling on to a target list, replace the whole xfail-list with the equivalent of "target { ! large_long_double }" (an already-existing "effective target")?
That looks like exactly what we want here, thanks.
