Re: [PATCH][testsuite] Don't run cproj-fails-with-broken-glibc.c for broken glibc

2014-08-08 Thread Mike Stump
On Aug 7, 2014, at 12:47 AM, Tom de Vries wrote: > Done. Committed as attached. Thanks.

Re: [PATCH][testsuite] Don't run cproj-fails-with-broken-glibc.c for broken glibc

2014-08-07 Thread Rainer Orth
Hi Tom, >> the test now XPASSes on Solaris, adding testsuite noise in the other >> direction on completely innocent systems. > > FWIW, I would be interested in understanding the details there. easy once you get it ;-) The check_effective_target_* procs are supposed to return 1 in the success cas

Re: [PATCH][testsuite] Don't run cproj-fails-with-broken-glibc.c for broken glibc

2014-08-07 Thread Tom de Vries
On 05-08-14 13:51, Rainer Orth wrote: Hi Mike, Or do we go with the removal suggestion of Mike? I’ll let others weigh in. I’m fine either way. Original author likely prefers the xfail, so I’m fine with the above. the test now XPASSes on Solaris, adding testsuite noise in the other directi

Re: [PATCH][testsuite] Don't run cproj-fails-with-broken-glibc.c for broken glibc

2014-08-05 Thread Rainer Orth
Hi Mike, >> Or do we go with the removal suggestion of Mike? > > I’ll let others weigh in. I’m fine either way. Original author likely > prefers the xfail, so I’m fine with the above. the test now XPASSes on Solaris, adding testsuite noise in the other direction on completely innocent systems.

Re: [PATCH][testsuite] Don't run cproj-fails-with-broken-glibc.c for broken glibc

2014-08-04 Thread Mike Stump
On Aug 2, 2014, at 9:26 AM, Tom de Vries wrote: > I've made it an xfail, and added documentation in attached follow-up patch. > OK? Ok. > Or do we go with the removal suggestion of Mike? I’ll let others weigh in. I’m fine either way. Original author likely prefers the xfail, so I’m fine wit

Re: [PATCH][testsuite] Don't run cproj-fails-with-broken-glibc.c for broken glibc

2014-08-02 Thread Tom de Vries
On 01-08-14 12:35, Rainer Orth wrote: Hi Tom, The test-case cproj-fails-with-broken-glibc.c does not work with broken glibcs, as the header comment mentions: ... Check the runtime behavior of the C library's cproj() function and whether it follows the standard. Versions of GLIBC throug

Re: [PATCH][testsuite] Don't run cproj-fails-with-broken-glibc.c for broken glibc

2014-08-01 Thread Mike Stump
On Aug 1, 2014, at 3:35 AM, Rainer Orth wrote: > I'm not at all happy with this patch > That test, even if we go the glibc version route, needs to be XFAILed > instead of requiring the working version. Apart from that, new > effective-target keywords need documenting in doc/sourcebuild.texi. So

Re: [PATCH][testsuite] Don't run cproj-fails-with-broken-glibc.c for broken glibc

2014-08-01 Thread Rainer Orth
Hi Tom, > The test-case cproj-fails-with-broken-glibc.c does not work with broken > glibcs, as the header comment mentions: > ... >Check the runtime behavior of the C library's cproj() function and >whether it follows the standard. Versions of GLIBC through 2.11.1 >had an incorrect im

Re: [PATCH][testsuite] Don't run cproj-fails-with-broken-glibc.c for broken glibc

2014-07-31 Thread Jeff Law
On 07/31/14 13:20, Tom de Vries wrote: Rainer, The test-case cproj-fails-with-broken-glibc.c does not work with broken glibcs, as the header comment mentions: ... Check the runtime behavior of the C library's cproj() function and whether it follows the standard. Versions of GLIBC throug

[PATCH][testsuite] Don't run cproj-fails-with-broken-glibc.c for broken glibc

2014-07-31 Thread Tom de Vries
Rainer, The test-case cproj-fails-with-broken-glibc.c does not work with broken glibcs, as the header comment mentions: ... Check the runtime behavior of the C library's cproj() function and whether it follows the standard. Versions of GLIBC through 2.11.1 had an incorrect implementat