Re: [PING 6, PATCH] Remove xfail from thread_local-order2.C.

2017-03-10 Thread Mike Stump
On Mar 10, 2017, at 8:22 AM, Jiong Wang wrote: > > I am seeing this failure on arm and aarch64 bare-metal environment where > newlib are used. > > This patch also XFAIL this testcase on newlib. > > OK for trunk? That's fine, if you want. The other solution is to

Re: [PING 6, PATCH] Remove xfail from thread_local-order2.C.

2017-03-10 Thread Jiong Wang
On 07/02/17 16:01, Mike Stump wrote: On Feb 7, 2017, at 2:20 AM, Rainer Orth wrote: No. In fact, I'd go for something like this: 2017-02-07 Dominik Vogt Rainer Orth *

Re: [PING 6, PATCH] Remove xfail from thread_local-order2.C.

2017-02-09 Thread Rainer Orth
Hi Mike, > On Feb 9, 2017, at 1:31 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote: >> >> 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

Re: [PING 6, PATCH] Remove xfail from thread_local-order2.C.

2017-02-09 Thread Mike Stump
On Feb 9, 2017, at 1:31 AM, Dominik Vogt wrote: > > 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

Re: [PING 6, PATCH] Remove xfail from thread_local-order2.C.

2017-02-09 Thread Rainer Orth
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. >

Re: [PING 6, PATCH] Remove xfail from thread_local-order2.C.

2017-02-09 Thread Dominik Vogt
On Tue, Feb 07, 2017 at 08:01:44AM -0800, Mike Stump wrote: > On Feb 7, 2017, at 2:20 AM, Rainer Orth wrote: > > No. In fact, I'd go for something like this: > > > > 2017-02-07 Dominik Vogt > > Rainer Orth

Re: [PING 6, PATCH] Remove xfail from thread_local-order2.C.

2017-02-07 Thread Mike Stump
On Feb 7, 2017, at 2:20 AM, Rainer Orth wrote: > No. In fact, I'd go for something like this: > > 2017-02-07 Dominik Vogt > Rainer Orth > > * g++.dg/tls/thread_local-order2.C: Only xfail

Re: [PING 6, PATCH] Remove xfail from thread_local-order2.C.

2017-02-07 Thread Rainer Orth
Mike Stump writes: > On Feb 6, 2017, at 3:33 AM, Rainer Orth wrote: >> >> Hi Gerald, >> >>> Copying the two guys listed as testsuite maintainers in gcc/MAINTAINERS >>> may help; let me do that for you. >>> >>> That said, if this fails to

Re: [PING 6, PATCH] Remove xfail from thread_local-order2.C.

2017-02-06 Thread Jason Merrill
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Mike Stump wrote: > I'll copy Jason to see if he recalls any systems where this might still fail. Not particularly; I expected it to fail everywhere except recent glibc, but apparently that isn't the case. Jason

Re: [PING 6, PATCH] Remove xfail from thread_local-order2.C.

2017-02-06 Thread Dominique d'Humières
For the record the test XPASS on darwin16 since at least r244095, but not on darwin10: XPASS: g++.dg/tls/thread_local-order2.C -std=c++11 execution test XPASS: g++.dg/tls/thread_local-order2.C -std=c++14 execution test XPASS: g++.dg/tls/thread_local-order2.C -std=c++11 execution test XPASS:

Re: [PING 6, PATCH] Remove xfail from thread_local-order2.C.

2017-02-06 Thread Mike Stump
On Feb 6, 2017, at 3:33 AM, Rainer Orth wrote: > > Hi Gerald, > >> Copying the two guys listed as testsuite maintainers in gcc/MAINTAINERS >> may help; let me do that for you. >> >> That said, if this fails to fail, the patch might be considered obvious, >> not

Re: [PING 6, PATCH] Remove xfail from thread_local-order2.C.

2017-02-06 Thread Dominik Vogt
On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 01:22:39PM +0100, Rainer Orth wrote: > Hi Dominik, > > > On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 12:33:21PM +0100, Rainer Orth wrote: > >> > Copying the two guys listed as testsuite maintainers in gcc/MAINTAINERS > >> > may help; let me do that for you. > >> > > >> > That said, if this

Re: [PING 6, PATCH] Remove xfail from thread_local-order2.C.

2017-02-06 Thread Rainer Orth
Hi Dominik, > On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 12:33:21PM +0100, Rainer Orth wrote: >> > Copying the two guys listed as testsuite maintainers in gcc/MAINTAINERS >> > may help; let me do that for you. >> > >> > That said, if this fails to fail, the patch might be considered obvious, >> > not requiring a

Re: [PING 6, PATCH] Remove xfail from thread_local-order2.C.

2017-02-06 Thread Dominik Vogt
On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 12:33:21PM +0100, Rainer Orth wrote: > > Copying the two guys listed as testsuite maintainers in gcc/MAINTAINERS > > may help; let me do that for you. > > > > That said, if this fails to fail, the patch might be considered obvious, > > not requiring a approval? > > it's

Re: [PING 6, PATCH] Remove xfail from thread_local-order2.C.

2017-02-06 Thread Rainer Orth
Hi Gerald, > Copying the two guys listed as testsuite maintainers in gcc/MAINTAINERS > may help; let me do that for you. > > That said, if this fails to fail, the patch might be considered obvious, > not requiring a approval? it's not: while it may XPASS with newer glibc versions, it still

Re: [PING 6, PATCH] Remove xfail from thread_local-order2.C.

2017-02-06 Thread Gerald Pfeifer
Copying the two guys listed as testsuite maintainers in gcc/MAINTAINERS may help; let me do that for you. That said, if this fails to fail, the patch might be considered obvious, not requiring a approval? Gerald On Mon, 6 Feb 2017, Dominik Vogt wrote: > Pinging this for eight months now. :-/ >

Re: [PING 6, PATCH] Remove xfail from thread_local-order2.C.

2017-02-06 Thread Dominik Vogt
Pinging this for eight months now. :-/ On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 02:41:21PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: > Patch: > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-04/msg01587.html > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 10:39:44AM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote: > > g++.dg/tls/thread_local-order2.C no longer fail with