Hi Dominik,
>> I think that addresses most all known issues. I'll pre-appove
>> any additional targets people find as trivial. For example, if
>> darwin10 doesn't pass, then *-*-darwin10* would be fine to add
>> if that fixes the issue. I don't happen to have one that old to
>> just test on.
>
> Here's a case of the test failing now:
>
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79427
>
> Powerpc64 BE with glibc-2.17 (2.18 reported to work). I'd be
> inclined to reply "upgrade Glibc to get rid of the FAIL" as that
> is what the test is supposed to find after all. What do you
> think?
agreed, that's what I usually do myself in similar situations. Unless
you can easily check for the difference (like check for the presence of
a function or facility), I let the test PASS on the newer version and
live with the failure on older ones.
The strange thing is that the test also passes on targets like darwin > 10
or AIX which certainly don't have __cxa_thread_atexit in libc. For some
reason, the fallback implementation in libstdc++/libsupc++ isn't enough...
Rainer
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University
