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 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
> >> e.g. on Solaris (and probably others).
> >
> > It's been so long that I cannot tell what the reference to
> > glibc-2.18 means.  I've only ever tested this on s390 and s390x,
> > and the test may or may not PASS on other targets with
> > glibc-2.18+.
> >
> >>  So unconditionally removing the
> >> xfail *-*-* trades an XPASS->PASS on some Linux versions against a
> >> XFAIL->FAIL elsewhere, which isn't acceptable.
> >
> > Okay, so what would you suggest?
> >
> >   // { dg-do run { xfail !s390*-*-* } } 
> >
> > or
> >
> >   // { dg-do run { xfail *-*-solaris } } 
> >
> > or something else?  We'll probably only get this list right by
> > trial and error anyway.
> 
> how about checking the gcc-testresults archives for XPASSes to get an
> idea?

In the newest 300 matches on gcc-testresults,

  XPASS: g++.dg/tls/thread_local-order2.C  -std=c++14 execution
test

appears for the following targets:

  s390
  s390x
  i386-unknown-freebsd10.3
  i686-pc-linux-gnu
  x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
  x86_64-apple-darwin16.4.0
  x86_64-unknown-freebsd12.0
  powerpc64le-unknown-linux-gnu
  powerpc-ibm-aix7.2.0.0
  aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu
  aarch64-suse-linux-gnu
  hppa-unknown-linux-gnu
  armv6-unknown-freebsd12.0
  target:arm-none-linux-gnueabi, host:i686-pc-linux-gnu
  target:m68k-unknown-linux-gnu; host:x86_64-suse-linux-gnu
  target:sh4-unknown-linux-gnu; host:i686-pc-linux-gnu

Ciao

Dominik ^_^  ^_^

-- 

Dominik Vogt
IBM Germany

Reply via email to