On Thu, 2016-01-21 at 18:26 +0000, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 21/01/16 10:19 -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> >On Jan 21, 2016, at 10:15 AM, Torvald Riegel <trie...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2016-01-21 at 10:06 -0800, Mike Stump wrote:
> >>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 9:29 AM, Dominique d'Humières <domi...@lps.ens.fr>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> // { dg-do run { target { ! { *-*-darwin* powerpc-ibm-aix* } } } }
> >>>
> >>> A comment to hint that this has something to do with weak undefined would
> >>> be nice.
> >>
> >> Here's the patch I prepared (which indeed includes a comment).
> >>
> >> OK for trunk? I'm not quite sure whether this qualifies as a
> >> regression, but having an additional test that now fails is one I guess.
> >> <libitm-safeexc-unsupported.patch>
> >
> >A simple testsuite fixup like this is still ok. From a darwin, AIX
> >perspective it is fine. If either the transaction or the libstdc++ people
> >like it, I think we’re set.
>
> OK from the libstdc++ side.
>
Committed.
