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]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [gfortran,testsuite,committed] Do not xfail gfortran.dg/nint_2.f90 on ppc64-linux

From: "François-Xavier Coudert" <fxcoudert at gmail dot com>
To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: "Janis Johnson" <janis187 at us dot ibm dot com>, "fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org" <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:34:53 +0100
Subject: Re: [gfortran,testsuite,committed] Do not xfail gfortran.dg/nint_2.f90 on ppc64-linux
References: <19c433eb0709140554v6702c746r19298bb356f3b529@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709141311310.26146@digraph.polyomino.org.uk> <19c433eb0709140656h15c33a41y7ca199e1329a735a@mail.gmail.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709141424430.26146@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>

> No, because there is in general *no difference* between a compiler
> generating code for N-bit GNU/Linux that is configured for one target and
> one configured for another target.

Patch reverted. Thanks for the explanation.

FX

References:
- [gfortran,testsuite,committed] Do not xfail gfortran.dg/nint_2.f90 on ppc64-linux
  - From: François-Xavier Coudert
- Re: [gfortran,testsuite,committed] Do not xfail gfortran.dg/nint_2.f90 on ppc64-linux
  - From: Joseph S. Myers
- Re: [gfortran,testsuite,committed] Do not xfail gfortran.dg/nint_2.f90 on ppc64-linux
  - From: François-Xavier Coudert
- Re: [gfortran,testsuite,committed] Do not xfail gfortran.dg/nint_2.f90 on ppc64-linux
  - From: Joseph S. Myers

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