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: [committed] Skip gcc.dg/Warray-bounds.c and g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds.C

From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
To: Janis Johnson <janis187 at us dot ibm dot com>
Cc: John David Anglin <dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 10:55:37 -0700
Subject: Re: [committed] Skip gcc.dg/Warray-bounds.c and g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds.C
References: <200704161630.l3GGUHuR001938@hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca> <4623A632.6010903@codesourcery.com> <20070416170709.GA4738@us.ibm.com>

Janis Johnson wrote:

> Yes, it was a conscious decision so that we could notice a new ICE for
> a test that was already an expected failure for some other reason.
> However, H-P once pointed out to me that an ICE like this can still be
> XFAILed with:
> 
>   /* { dg-do compile } */
>   /* { dg-xfail-if "PR 31500" { hppa*-*-* && { ! hppa*64*-*-* } } } */

OK, that's a good hack.  If that works, John, I think that change can be
safely considered pre-approved -- unless Janis objects, of course.

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
mark@codesourcery.com
(650) 331-3385 x713

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [committed] Skip gcc.dg/Warray-bounds.c and g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds.C
  - From: Janis Johnson

References:
- Re: [committed] Skip gcc.dg/Warray-bounds.c and g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds.C
  - From: John David Anglin
- Re: [committed] Skip gcc.dg/Warray-bounds.c and g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds.C
  - From: Mark Mitchell
- Re: [committed] Skip gcc.dg/Warray-bounds.c and g++.dg/warn/Warray-bounds.C
  - From: Janis Johnson

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