Please include the libstdc++ list, they don't all read the other list. Also, the patch or a link to the patch helps the reviewers find the patch, otherwise even finding the patch to review can be hard for some folks.
Seems reasonable to me, though, I'd normally punt to the atomic people. > On Jun 29, 2016, at 9:35 AM, Thomas Preudhomme > <thomas.preudho...@foss.arm.com> wrote: > Ping? > > Best regards, > > Thomas > > On Thursday 02 June 2016 14:34:03 Thomas Preudhomme wrote: >> Ping? >> >> On Thursday 26 May 2016 14:00:55 Thomas Preudhomme wrote: >>> [Sorry for the large recipient list, I wasn't sure who of C++ and x86 >>> maintainers should approve this] >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> 29_atomics/atomic/65913.cc test in libstdc++ is a runtime test that only >>> rely on atomic and gnu++11 support. Therefore I propose to require >>> atomic-builtins instead of an x86 (32 or 64 bits) target. >>> >>> ChangeLog entry is as follows: >>> >>> 2016-05-19 Thomas Preud'homme <thomas.preudho...@arm.com> >>> >>> * testsuite/29_atomics/atomic/65913.cc: Require atomic-builtins >>> >>> rather than specific target. >>> >>> >>> Patch is in attachment. >>> >>> >>> Is this ok for trunk? >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Thomas
req_atomic_builtin_for_65913.patch
Description: application/applefile
