Hi Sandra,
The part of the patch to add tests for this goes on top of my base
TS29113 testsuite patch, which hasn't been reviewed or committed yet.
It is my understanding that it is not gcc policy to add xfailed test
cases for things that do not yet work. Rather, xfail is for tests that
late
Good to go Tobias.
Jerry
On 7/14/21 5:50 AM, Burnus, Tobias wrote:
Ping**2
On Juli 8, 2021 I wrote:
*Ping*
I intent to incorporate Sandra's suggestions, except for the beginning of line
spacing - that's needed to avoid exceeding the 80 character line limit. I did
not include an updated pat
[Also including for guidance.]
Hi!
(I'm not involved in or familiar with Sandra's Fortran TS29113 work, just
commenting generally here.)
On 2021-07-16T09:52:28+0200, Thomas Koenig via Gcc-patches
wrote:
> It is my understanding that it is not gcc policy to add xfailed test
> cases for thing
On 7/16/21 9:32 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
[Also including for guidance.]
Hi!
(I'm not involved in or familiar with Sandra's Fortran TS29113 work, just
commenting generally here.)
On 2021-07-16T09:52:28+0200, Thomas Koenig via Gcc-patches
wrote:
It is my understanding that it is not gcc
On 7/16/21 9:32 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
[much snipped]
Of course, we shall assume a certain level of quality in the XFAILed test
cases: I'm certainly not suggesting we put any random junk into the
testsuite, coarsely XFAILed. (I have not reviewed Sandra's test cases to
that effect, but know
This patch is for PR101317, one of the bugs uncovered by the TS29113
testsuite. Here I'd observed that CFI_establish, etc was not diagnosing
some invalid-argument situations documented in the standard, although it
was properly catching others. After fixing those I discovered a couple
small mi
