On Mar 10, 2017, at 8:22 AM, Jiong Wang wrote:
>
> I am seeing this failure on arm and aarch64 bare-metal environment where
> newlib are used.
>
> This patch also XFAIL this testcase on newlib.
>
> OK for trunk?
That's fine, if you want. The other solution is to actually fix newlib, which
w
On 07/02/17 16:01, Mike Stump wrote:
On Feb 7, 2017, at 2:20 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
No. In fact, I'd go for something like this:
2017-02-07 Dominik Vogt
Rainer Orth
* g++.dg/tls/thread_local-order2.C: Only xfail execution on
*-*-solaris*.
# HG changeset patc
Hi Mike,
> On Feb 9, 2017, at 1:31 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
>>
>> Here's a case of the test failing now:
>>
>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79427
>>
>> Powerpc64 BE with glibc-2.17 (2.18 reported to work). I'd be
>> inclined to reply "upgrade Glibc to get rid of the FAIL" as t
On Feb 9, 2017, at 1:31 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote:
>
> Here's a case of the test failing now:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79427
>
> Powerpc64 BE with glibc-2.17 (2.18 reported to work). I'd be
> inclined to reply "upgrade Glibc to get rid of the FAIL" as that
> is what the t
Hi Dominik,
>> I think that addresses most all known issues. I'll pre-appove
>> any additional targets people find as trivial. For example, if
>> darwin10 doesn't pass, then *-*-darwin10* would be fine to add
>> if that fixes the issue. I don't happen to have one that old to
>> just test on.
>
On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 08:01:44AM -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Feb 7, 2017, at 2:20 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
> > No. In fact, I'd go for something like this:
> >
> > 2017-02-07 Dominik Vogt
> > Rainer Orth
> >
> > * g++.dg/tls/thread_local-order2.C: Only xfail execution on
> >
On Feb 7, 2017, at 2:20 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
> No. In fact, I'd go for something like this:
>
> 2017-02-07 Dominik Vogt
> Rainer Orth
>
> * g++.dg/tls/thread_local-order2.C: Only xfail execution on
> *-*-solaris*.
>
> # HG changeset patch
> # Parent 031bb7a327cc98
Mike Stump writes:
> On Feb 6, 2017, at 3:33 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
>>
>> Hi Gerald,
>>
>>> Copying the two guys listed as testsuite maintainers in gcc/MAINTAINERS
>>> may help; let me do that for you.
>>>
>>> That said, if this fails to fail, the patch might be considered obvious,
>>> not re
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
> I'll copy Jason to see if he recalls any systems where this might still fail.
Not particularly; I expected it to fail everywhere except recent
glibc, but apparently that isn't the case.
Jason
For the record the test XPASS on darwin16 since at least r244095, but not on
darwin10:
XPASS: g++.dg/tls/thread_local-order2.C -std=c++11 execution test
XPASS: g++.dg/tls/thread_local-order2.C -std=c++14 execution test
XPASS: g++.dg/tls/thread_local-order2.C -std=c++11 execution test
XPASS: g+
On Feb 6, 2017, at 3:33 AM, Rainer Orth wrote:
>
> Hi Gerald,
>
>> Copying the two guys listed as testsuite maintainers in gcc/MAINTAINERS
>> may help; let me do that for you.
>>
>> That said, if this fails to fail, the patch might be considered obvious,
>> not requiring a approval?
>
> it's n
On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 01:22:39PM +0100, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Hi Dominik,
>
> > On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 12:33:21PM +0100, Rainer Orth wrote:
> >> > Copying the two guys listed as testsuite maintainers in gcc/MAINTAINERS
> >> > may help; let me do that for you.
> >> >
> >> > That said, if this fai
Hi Dominik,
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 12:33:21PM +0100, Rainer Orth wrote:
>> > Copying the two guys listed as testsuite maintainers in gcc/MAINTAINERS
>> > may help; let me do that for you.
>> >
>> > That said, if this fails to fail, the patch might be considered obvious,
>> > not requiring a app
On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 12:33:21PM +0100, Rainer Orth wrote:
> > Copying the two guys listed as testsuite maintainers in gcc/MAINTAINERS
> > may help; let me do that for you.
> >
> > That said, if this fails to fail, the patch might be considered obvious,
> > not requiring a approval?
>
> it's not
Hi Gerald,
> Copying the two guys listed as testsuite maintainers in gcc/MAINTAINERS
> may help; let me do that for you.
>
> That said, if this fails to fail, the patch might be considered obvious,
> not requiring a approval?
it's not: while it may XPASS with newer glibc versions, it still XFAILs
/testsuite/ChangeLog
>>>
>>> * g++.dg/tls/thread_local-order2.C: Remove xfail.
>>>
>>> From 0b0abbd2e6d9d8b6857622065bdcbdde31b5ddb0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>>> From: Dominik Vogt
>>> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 09:54:07 +0100
>>> Subj
++.dg/tls/thread_local-order2.C: Remove xfail.
>
> > >From 0b0abbd2e6d9d8b6857622065bdcbdde31b5ddb0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Dominik Vogt
> > Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 09:54:07 +0100
> > Subject: [PATCH] Remove xfail from thread_local-order2.C.
> >
>
e xfail.
>
> > >From 0b0abbd2e6d9d8b6857622065bdcbdde31b5ddb0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Dominik Vogt
> > Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 09:54:07 +0100
> > Subject: [PATCH] Remove xfail from thread_local-order2.C.
> >
> > This should work with Glibc-
e xfail.
>
> > >From 0b0abbd2e6d9d8b6857622065bdcbdde31b5ddb0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Dominik Vogt
> > Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 09:54:07 +0100
> > Subject: [PATCH] Remove xfail from thread_local-order2.C.
> >
> > This should work with Glibc-
e xfail.
>
> > >From 0b0abbd2e6d9d8b6857622065bdcbdde31b5ddb0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Dominik Vogt
> > Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 09:54:07 +0100
> > Subject: [PATCH] Remove xfail from thread_local-order2.C.
> >
> > This should work with Glibc-
rom: Dominik Vogt
> Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 09:54:07 +0100
> Subject: [PATCH] Remove xfail from thread_local-order2.C.
>
> This should work with Glibc-2.18 or newer.
> ---
> gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tls/thread_local-order2.C | 1 -
> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --g
ead_local-order2.C: Remove xfail.
>From 0b0abbd2e6d9d8b6857622065bdcbdde31b5ddb0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dominik Vogt
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 09:54:07 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Remove xfail from thread_local-order2.C.
This should work with Glibc-2.18 or newer.
---
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tls/thre
rom 0b0abbd2e6d9d8b6857622065bdcbdde31b5ddb0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Dominik Vogt
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 09:54:07 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Remove xfail from thread_local-order2.C.
This should work with Glibc-2.18 or newer.
---
gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tls/thread_local-order2.C | 1 -
1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
diff --gi
23 matches
Mail list logo
