On Aug 1, 2014, at 3:35 AM, Rainer Orth <r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote: > I'm not at all happy with this patch
> That test, even if we go the glibc version route, needs to be XFAILed > instead of requiring the working version. Apart from that, new > effective-target keywords need documenting in doc/sourcebuild.texi. Some background folks: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-04/msg00490.html So I too agree that skipping the test case on known broken systems when the entire design of the test case is to fail on exactly those broken systems is borked. So, what should we do with it instead. Either xfailing it on known bad systems, or removing it entirely as misguided seem to be the two choices that make sense. What are people in favor of? Clearly the original author wanted at least the xfail. I lean toward removal I think. Why? The gcc test suite, while it could be a filesystem test suite, an OS test suite, a libc test suite, generally speaking that is beyond the scope of this project. From the test case: Check the runtime behavior of the C library's cproj() function and whether it follows the standard. Versions of GLIBC through 2.11.1 had an incorrect implementation which will conflict with GCC's builtin cproj(). GLIBC 2.12+ should be okay.
