Yes, basically, I agreed with Eric. One of the major reason to intentionally put these testing cases under c-c++-common is to fail them by default on the platforms that do not support this feature yet.
Then the platform maintainer could decide whether to complete this feature on the specific platform or skip them if they don’t want such feature on this platform. Qing > On Mar 31, 2021, at 2:14 AM, Eric Botcazou <botca...@adacore.com> wrote: > >> That is true, but nothing really happened during the 5 months that the tests >> have been failing on many other architectures (except that powerpc and arm >> had skipped those tests). There has been a PR open for all those 5 months. > > So what? This is not the first example and I don't see anything special with > it. You or maintainers can decide to XFAIL particular architectures at will, > but hiding the failures by default is IMO not appropriate. > >> We can perhaps revert the skips after branching GCC 11 off, but I have >> little hope other target maintainers will do what you did, so unsure if it >> would help. And the changes need people familiar with each of the backends >> to decide what needs to be done and what is doable. > > That's exactly the same situation as for -fstack-usage/-Wstack-usage, where I > intentionally made gcc.dg/stack-usage-1.c fail by default so that maintainers > could add the missing bits; this worked relatively well. > > -- > Eric Botcazou > >
