On 10/09/2012 07:39 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> On 27/09/12 01:02, Janis Johnson wrote:
>> Test gcc.target/arm/div64-unwinding.c is known to fail for GNU/Linux
>> targets, as described in PR54732. This patch adds an XFAIL.
>>
>> Tested on arm-none-eabi and arm-none-linux-gnueabi, checked in on trunk.
>>
>> Janis
>>
>>
>> gcc-20120926-5
>>
>>
>> 2012-09-26 Janis Johnson <jani...@codesourcery.com>
>>
>> * gcc.target/arm/div64-unwinding.c: XFAIL for GNU/Linux.
>>
>> Index: gcc.target/arm/div64-unwinding.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- gcc.target/arm/div64-unwinding.c (revision 191765)
>> +++ gcc.target/arm/div64-unwinding.c (working copy)
>> @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
>> /* Performing a 64-bit division should not pull in the unwinder. */
>>
>> -/* { dg-do run } */
>> +/* The test is expected to fail for GNU/Linux; see PR54723. */
>> +/* { dg-do run { xfail *-*-linux* } } */
>> /* { dg-options "-O0" } */
>>
>> #include <stdlib.h>
>>
>
> I don't like this. To me, XFAIL means "there's a bug here, but we're
> not too worried about it". The behaviour on linux targets is correct,
> so this test should either PASS or be skipped.
Richard,
The impression I got from Julian is "there's a bug here, but we're not
too worried about it". If you think it should be skipped instead then
I'll gladly change the test.
Janis
