This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: Should 27_io/ios_base/storage/2.cc be XFAILed on powerpc64-apple-darwin9?

From: Bradley Lucier <lucier at math dot purdue dot edu>
To: Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo dot med dot uc dot edu>
Cc: Bradley Lucier <lucier at math dot purdue dot edu>, Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:32:16 -0500
Subject: Re: Should 27_io/ios_base/storage/2.cc be XFAILed on powerpc64-apple-darwin9?
References: <2B639079-F907-465B-98FA-7AB4A9323210@math.purdue.edu> <49253950.9070403@oracle.com> <20081120142110.GA5760@bromo.med.uc.edu>

On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 11:17:52AM +0100, Paolo Carlini wrote:

Hi,
Should this be XFAILed on powerpc64-apple-darwin9?
A patch doing that is essentially preapproved if you can confirm that in the meanwhile the malloc bug (Radar 3884894) has been fixed for i386-apple-darwin and not for powerpc64-apple-darwin. Can you do that?

I don't quite understand: does XFAILing the test mean that the test isn't attempted, or just that if it fails it doesn't show up on the report (except incrementing the number of expected failures)? I'd like it not to be attempted if it will want 34GB + of virtual memory.

Brad

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Should 27_io/ios_base/storage/2.cc be XFAILed on powerpc64-apple-darwin9?
  - From: Paolo Carlini

References:
- Should 27_io/ios_base/storage/2.cc be XFAILed on powerpc64-apple-darwin9?
  - From: Bradley Lucier
- Re: Should 27_io/ios_base/storage/2.cc be XFAILed on powerpc64-apple-darwin9?
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: Should 27_io/ios_base/storage/2.cc be XFAILed on powerpc64-apple-darwin9?
  - From: Jack Howarth

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