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: Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>
To: Bradley Lucier <lucier at math dot purdue dot edu>
Cc: Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo dot med dot uc dot edu>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:06:42 +0100
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> <28A3E5E6-D851-4796-8187-1C27CCAECB65@math.purdue.edu>

Hi,
> 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)?
The latter. I think you want to skip it completely for the targets
affected by the malloc bug at issue.

Paolo.

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

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