[PATCH] PR libstdc++/78179 run long double tests separately

[Hans-Peter Nilsson]

> Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 15:22:23 +0100
> From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com>

> On 20/09/18 15:36 +0200, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> >On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 at 23:13, Rainer Orth <ro@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Christophe,
> >>
> >> > I have noticed failures on hypot-long-double.cc on arm, so I suggest we add:
> >> >
> >> > diff --git
> >> > a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/26_numerics/headers/cmath/hypot-long-double.cc
> >> > b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/26_numerics/headers/cmath/hypot-long-double.cc
> >> > index 8a05473..4c2e33b 100644
> >> > --- a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/26_numerics/headers/cmath/hypot-long-double.cc
> >> > +++ b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/26_numerics/headers/cmath/hypot-long-double.cc
> >> > @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@
> >> >
> >> >  // { dg-options "-std=gnu++17" }
> >> >  // { dg-do run { target c++17 } }
> >> > -// { dg-xfail-run-if "PR 78179" { powerpc-ibm-aix* hppa-*-linux* nios2-*-* } }
> >> > +// { dg-xfail-run-if "PR 78179" { powerpc-ibm-aix* hppa-*-linux*
> >> > nios2-*-* arm*-*-* } }
> >> >
> >> >  // Run the long double tests from hypot.cc separately, because they fail on a
> >> >  // number of targets. See PR libstdc++/78179 for details.
> >> >
> >> > OK?
> >>
> >> just a nit (and not a review): I'd prefer the target list to be sorted
> >> alphabetically, not completely random.
> >>
> >
> >Sure, I can sort the whole list, if OK on principle.
> 
> Yes, please go ahead and commit it with the sorted list.

"Me too".  Can I please, rather than piling on to a target list,
replace the whole xfail-list with the equivalent of "target { !
large_long_double }" (an already-existing "effective target")?

I'll leave the thought of running the test only for
large_long_double targets (qualifying the dg-do run) instead of
an xfail-clause for maintainers.

brgds, H-P