This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C PATCH for c/65345 (file-scope _Atomic expansion with floats)
- From: Marek Polacek <polacek at redhat dot com>
- To: David Edelsohn <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>, Catherine Moore <clm at codesourcery dot com>, Matthew Fortune <matthew dot fortune at imgtec dot com>, Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou at adacore dot com>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Uros Bizjak <ubizjak at gmail dot com>, David Miller <davem at redhat dot com>, Ulrich Weigand <uweigand at de dot ibm dot com>, Andreas Krebbel <Andreas dot Krebbel at de dot ibm dot com>, Richard Earnshaw <richard dot earnshaw at arm dot com>, Ramana Radhakrishnan <ramana dot radhakrishnan at arm dot com>, Nick Clifton <nickc at redhat dot com>, olegendo at gcc dot gnu dot org, kkojima at gcc dot gnu dot org, Marcus Shawcroft <marcus dot shawcroft at arm dot com>
- Date: Thu, 1 Oct 2015 18:18:34 +0200
- Subject: Re: C PATCH for c/65345 (file-scope _Atomic expansion with floats)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20151001144941 dot GT6184 at redhat dot com> <CAGWvnyksEqPaLLQm-ieuE0XF_F9nS5Q1nVMyvp7SMtp5kBA_aw at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Thu, Oct 01, 2015 at 11:02:09AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Joseph reminded me that I had forgotten about this patch. As mentioned
> > here <https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2015-04/msg01792.html>, I'm
> > removing the XFAILs in the tests so people are likely to see new FAILs.
> >
> > I think the following targets will need similar fix as the one below:
> > * MIPS
> > * rs6000
> > * alpha
> > * sparc
> > * s390
> > * arm
> > * sh
> > * aarch64
> >
> > I'm CCing the respective maintainers. You might want to XFAIL those tests.
>
> Why aren't you testing the appropriate fix on all of the targets?
It's very improbable that I could fix and properly test all of them;
I simply don't have the cycles and resources to fix e.g. sh/sparc/alpha/mips.
You want me to revert my fix, but I don't really see the point here; the
patch doesn't introduce any regressions, it's just that the new tests are
likely to FAIL. It sounds preferable to me to fix 2 targets than to leave
all of them broken (and I bet many maintainers were unaware of the issue).
Would XFAILing the new tests work for you, if you don't want to see any
new FAILs?
If you still insist on reverting the patch, ok, but I think this PR is
unlikely to be resolved any time soon then.
Marek