On Sat, Nov 14, 2020 at 8:58 PM Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On 11/14/20 6:35 PM, David Edelsohn wrote: > >>>>>> Jeffrey Law wrote: > >> I worry a bit about the less common native targets -- aix, hpux and the > >> like. But testing them is too painful to contemplate these days. I'm > >> sure those with access to suitable hardware will chime in if something > >> is amiss. > > All of these testcases now fail on AIX with "no section detected". > > One cannot XFAIL the scan, one must skip the entire test because of > > the manner in which scan-assembler-symbol-section works. > > > > And, Jeff, the "too painful to contemplate" snide comment is playing > > the victim. There are multiple AIX systems in the GNU Compile Farm > > with instructions on how to bootstrap GCC on the system. Jonathan > > Wakely and others don't have a problem testing patches on AIX. > > > > Other people are able to more thoroughly test patches. As one of the > > original GCC developers and a member of the GCC SC, this sets a poor > > example of patch development and testing. This patch should not have > > been pushed and should be reverted until it can gracefully fail on > > non-ELF targets. > > I've tried repeatedly through the years to use the compile farm to build > aix without success at some point it's just no longer worth my time. I > tested far more targets than is required by our policies and procedures > and I made a decision to move forward. > > > Let's just xfail the tests for aix and get on with our lives.
As I wrote, XFAIL doesn't work with scanasm. I actually have expanded scan-assembler-symbol-section to recognize AIX CSECT sections and I am updating the tests to check for the appropriate strings generated in AIX XCOFF. It all just works. It would have been nice if you and Matthew had given me and other less common targets a heads up to test the patch. Thanks, David
