On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 08:47:49PM +0000, Iain Sandoe wrote: > Peter Bergner <berg...@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > >On 12/4/19 1:16 PM, Segher Boessenkool wrote: > >>This isn't run from powerpc.exp, so it needs to still do that first check. > >>And it's up to the Darwin maintainers whether they want that second part > >>(there are many more tests and testsuites that disable *-darwin* while > >>that isn't really necessary). > > As Peter mentions below, it produces a lot of meaningless FAILs if we run > the tests on Darwin, so one way or another, I’d like to skip them > (unless/until > we have a situation that DFP is supported on some hardware running > Darwin)...
Sure. The question is, should separate tests have a dg-require-effective-target clause, or do we want that in dfp.exp? Either way the separate tests can be updated to remove other resstrictions after this (never running on aix, for example). > >Well, yes. I saw those tests being run for my --disable-decimal-float > >runs, which resulted in FAILs for all of those tests. They had ICE's > >on unpatched trunk and FAILed gracefully using my patch, but they all > >still FAILed, since these are DFP tests and DFP is disabled. > >There's no sense in running these tests when DFP is disabled, either > >manually due to --disable-decimal-float or implicitly because of the > >specific target. > > > >Why isn't just testing check_effective_target_dfp enough to disable the > >tests on Darwin, --disable-decimal-float, etc.? > > … It should be a better solution - I will confirm this. Yes, this would be ideal. The fewer tests we disable for specific OSes, the better. Segher
