On March 29, 2016 4:45:44 PM GMT+02:00, David Edelsohn <dje....@gmail.com> wrote: >On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 8:38 PM, Bill Schmidt ><wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> For a long time we've had hundreds of failing guality tests. These >> failures don't seem to have any correlation with gdb functionality >for >> POWER, which is working fine. At this point the value of these tests >to >> us seems questionable. Fixing these is such low priority that it is >> unlikely we will ever get around to it. In the meanwhile, the >failures >> simply clutter up our regression test reports. Thus I'd like to >disable >> them, and that's what this test does. >> >> Verified to remove hundreds of failure messages on >> powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu. :) Is this ok for trunk? >> >> Thanks, >> Bill >> >> >> 2016-03-28 Bill Schmidt <wschm...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >> >> * g++.dg/guality/guality.exp: Disable for powerpc*-linux*. >> * gcc.dg/guality/guality.exp: Likewise. > >Thanks for everyone else's suggestions. > >As far as we understand, debugging quality on POWER is equivalent to >other targets. > >There is an issue with PPC64 BE and AIX requiring an extra frame push >when debugging is enabled, which will cause differences between code >with debugging enabled and debugging disabled. THIS WILL NOT BE >CHANGED.
Guality does not check for this but guality tests are in essence debug info tests (using gdb). So definitely for those test cases failing debug quality is _not_ on par with x86 Linux. Richard. >We have no plans to make code generation a slave to the testsuite. >The testsuite is a tool, successful results from the testsuite is not >a goal unto itself. > >This patch is okay. > >Thanks, David
