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