On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 7:28 PM Alan Modra <amo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 01:44:54PM -0500, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 09:18:35PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> > > >From e7ce33cef478a826a2fe4e110b43b49586ef2438 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > From: Alan Modra <amo...@gmail.com>
> > > Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 15:57:57 +1030
> > > Subject:
> > >
> > > I noticed this test is unsupported on power10 when looking through
> > > test logs. There seems no reason why that should be the case, ie.
> > > likely the target test was meant to be powerpc64*-*-linux*. And that
> > > simplifies down further.
> >
> > The target name does not tell you if you are doing a -m32 or a -m64
> > build; both powerpc-linux and powerpc64-linux can build both 32-bit and
> > 64-bit just fine (and hopefully identically). Having target powerpc64*
> > is basically always wrong.
>
> Yes. Even le/be selection should really be done with { target le }
> for example rather than { target powerpc*le-*-* }. One day we might
> want to test compilers with multi-endian support.
>
> > Your patch is fine though, modulo what David said. If there is some
> > selector you can use (or you can make one) that is much preferred. But
> > since this patch is strictly an improvement already, it is okay for
> > trunk (if the 2nd works on powerpc64le-linux of course ;-) ) Thanks!
> >
> > (Improving it to test on exactly the right targets would be nice :-) )
>
> Thank you, I committed it "as is". An incremental improvement is
> better than no improvement.
Alan,
It is disrespectful for you to ignore the review of a maintainer and
your colleague. You may not pick and choose amongst maintainers. And
Segher should not be so disrespectful as to contradict his colleague
and co-maintainer.
I replied no to your patch and requested a different solution -- one
that does not require significant effort. Please fix this testcase
the way that I requested.
Thank You,
David
