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
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
*
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
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
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.
>
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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. :-/
>
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
17 matches
Mail list logo