This is the mail archive of the
gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: target/8087: sparc-sun-solaris2.7 C testsuite failures inexecute/20020720-1.c w/-m64 or on sparcv9/sparc64
- From: "David S. Miller" <davem at redhat dot com>
- To: nobody at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Cc: gcc-prs at gcc dot gnu dot org,
- Date: 3 Oct 2002 00:26:01 -0000
- Subject: Re: target/8087: sparc-sun-solaris2.7 C testsuite failures inexecute/20020720-1.c w/-m64 or on sparcv9/sparc64
- Reply-to: "David S. Miller" <davem at redhat dot com>
The following reply was made to PR target/8087; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
To: ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu
Cc: roger@eyesopen.com, rth@redhat.com, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org,
gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, jakub@redhat.com
Subject: Re: target/8087: sparc-sun-solaris2.7 C testsuite failures in
execute/20020720-1.c w/-m64 or on sparcv9/sparc64
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 17:09:47 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:46:13 -0400 (EDT)
So what does that mean with respect to addressing the testcase?
Fixable? XFAIL it?
It think it would be rediculious to mark such a simple piece of C code
as XFAIL on any platform. Roger reverted his changes it appears, so
it should pass now.