This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: TR1 Math Special Functions
- From: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at suse dot de>
- To: Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>
- Cc: libstdc++ <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw4rd at verizon dot net>
- Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2007 12:12:13 +0100
- Subject: Re: TR1 Math Special Functions
- References: <45C63159.1070706@verizon.net> <45CB5AA2.6000100@suse.de> <45CBBA5D.4060800@verizon.net> <45CBBBE1.106@suse.de> <87sldgfa7t.fsf@soliton.cs.tamu.edu> <45CBC377.6050406@suse.de> <m364aci27w.fsf@localhost.localdomain> <Pine.GSO.4.58.0702081859410.20183@sun> <45CBFCD3.3090407@verizon.net> <45CC355B.2010505@suse.de> <45CC6BBC.9040209@redhat.com> <45E815FD.5050300@redhat.com> <45E82650.1050206@verizon.net> <45E82FD7.4010102@redhat.com> <45E95645.5050603@redhat.com>
Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
FAIL:
tr1/5_numerical_facilities/special_functions/01_assoc_laguerre/check_value.cc
execution test
FAIL:
tr1/5_numerical_facilities/special_functions/02_assoc_legendre/check_value.cc
execution test
FAIL:
tr1/5_numerical_facilities/special_functions/17_hyperg/check_value.cc
execution test
FAIL:
tr1/5_numerical_facilities/special_functions/18_laguerre/check_value.cc
execution test
FAIL:
tr1/5_numerical_facilities/special_functions/22_sph_legendre/check_value.cc
execution test
Should these just be xfailed for x86-linux for the time being, or
(IMHO better) just comment out the max_abs_frac tests in the failing
check_value.cc files for the time being? Since really there is just
one of many tests that are failing in these test files.
At this point, I'd really like to see this go in, hopefully say on
Monday. Paolo, what say you?
I agree, but I would hate to see lots of unexpected fails on testresults
or, worse, reports of bootstrap failures. Thus, I mean to regtest for
2-3 different targets over the week-end and report on the absolutely
minimal set of xfails or fixes in order to commit on monday...
Paolo.