https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113276
--- Comment #5 from Torbjorn SVENSSON <azoff at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to richard.earnshaw from comment #4) > On 27/03/2026 14:54, azoff at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs wrote: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=113276 > > > > --- Comment #3 from Torbjorn SVENSSON <azoff at gcc dot gnu.org> --- > > Could we perhaps change > > > > /* { dg-do run } */ > > > > to > > > > /* { dg-do run { xfail { arm-none-eabi && { ! arm_fp_dp_ok } } } } */ > > > > in order to mark the test as having expectancy to fail unless there is DP HW > > support? Or would this have any side effects that I'm nor aware of? > > Not quite, since unfortunately that test tries some different combinations > of flags which we won't later add. The test isn't suitable for a 'run' > target. > > But otherwise, in principle this looks like the right approach. Would it be better to simply add this then? /* { dg-skip-if "PR113276" { arm-none-eabi && { ! arm_fp_dp_ok } } } */ To me, it feels like a bad situation to have tests marked as fail that would never be fixed. At some point, the noise would be too high so that real issues would be missed.
