This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: PATCH: XFAIL tests that aren't regressions

To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>,dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca
Subject: Re: PATCH: XFAIL tests that aren't regressions
From: Franz Sirl <Franz dot Sirl-kernel at lauterbach dot com>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 17:53:40 +0200
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
References: <20010430074353W.mitchell@codesourcery.com> <01043017223401.21472@enzo.bigblue.local> <20010430083237V.mitchell@codesourcery.com>

On Monday 30 April 2001 17:32, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Thanks for the info.

No problem :-).

> I don't think we need to move the tests around on the branch.  We
> should do that on the mainline though, if it makes sense.

The test belongs into the ieee subdir because it relies on correct IEEE math, 
it's just that ieee.exp shoudn't use -ffloat-store unconditionally on all 
platforms.

So I would say move the test on both mainline and branch, and put fixing 
ieee.exp on the mainline TODO list.

Franz.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: PATCH: XFAIL tests that aren't regressions
  - From: John David Anglin
- Re: PATCH: XFAIL tests that aren't regressions
  - From: Mark Mitchell

References:
- PATCH: XFAIL tests that aren't regressions
  - From: Mark Mitchell
- Re: PATCH: XFAIL tests that aren't regressions
  - From: Franz Sirl
- Re: PATCH: XFAIL tests that aren't regressions
  - From: Mark Mitchell

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]