From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4769 invoked by alias); 7 Mar 2011 03:55:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 4761 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Mar 2011 03:55:13 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-px0-f169.google.com (HELO mail-px0-f169.google.com) (209.85.212.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 07 Mar 2011 03:55:06 +0000 Received: by pxi9 with SMTP id 9so1038364pxi.0 for ; Sun, 06 Mar 2011 19:55:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.151.4 with SMTP id y4mr2982507wfd.133.1299470104707; Sun, 06 Mar 2011 19:55:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from bubble.grove.modra.org ([115.187.252.19]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w27sm3772922wfd.16.2011.03.06.19.55.01 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 06 Mar 2011 19:55:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by bubble.grove.modra.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2CF62170C1FA; Mon, 7 Mar 2011 14:24:57 +1030 (CST) Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 03:55:00 -0000 From: Alan Modra To: Hans-Peter Nilsson Cc: hjl.tools@gmail.com, hp@axis.com, binutils@sourceware.org Subject: Re: PATCH: Mention symbol name in non-constant .size expression Message-ID: <20110307035457.GL6275@bubble.grove.modra.org> Mail-Followup-To: Hans-Peter Nilsson , hjl.tools@gmail.com, hp@axis.com, binutils@sourceware.org References: <201103070328.p273S2rm023864@ignucius.se.axis.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201103070328.p273S2rm023864@ignucius.se.axis.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-03/txt/msg00093.txt.bz2 On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 04:28:02AM +0100, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > If there's no intention to actually fix it, I think xfail is > more appropriate; no particular reason it should fail, IMHO. The new test will fail for any target without DIFF_EXPR_OK defined. HJ, I don't think it is worth going to the bother of firstly finding out exactly what set of targets that is, then xfailing them all. Please just revert the testsuite change that checks for the symbol name. -- Alan Modra Australia Development Lab, IBM