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? Gerald On Mon, 6 Feb 2017, Dominik Vogt wrote: > Pinging this for eight months now. :-/ > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 02:41:21PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: >> Patch: >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg01587.html >> >> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 10:39:44AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: >>> g++.dg/tls/thread_local-order2.C no longer fail with Glibc-2.18 or >>> newer since this commit: >>> >>> 2014-08-01 Zifei Tong <zifeit...@gmail.com> >>> >>> * libsupc++/atexit_thread.cc (HAVE___CXA_THREAD_ATEXIT_IMPL): >>> Add >>> _GLIBCXX_ prefix to macro. >>> >>> git-svn-id: svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk@213504 >>> 138bc75d-0d04-0410-96 >>> >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-07/msg02091.html >>> >>> So, is it time to remove the xfail from the test case? >>> >>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog >>> >>> * g++.dg/tls/thread_local-order2.C: Remove xfail. >>> >>> From 0b0abbd2e6d9d8b6857622065bdcbdde31b5ddb0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >>> From: Dominik Vogt <v...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >>> 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 --git a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tls/thread_local-order2.C >>> b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tls/thread_local-order2.C >>> index f8df917..d3351e6 100644 >>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tls/thread_local-order2.C >>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/tls/thread_local-order2.C >>> @@ -2,7 +2,6 @@ >>> // that isn't reverse order of construction. We need to move >>> // __cxa_thread_atexit into glibc to get this right. >>> >>> -// { dg-do run { xfail *-*-* } } >>> // { dg-require-effective-target c++11 } >>> // { dg-add-options tls } >>> // { dg-require-effective-target tls_runtime } >>> -- >>> 2.3.0
