From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <binutils-return-70488-listarch-binutils=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 12289 invoked by alias); 7 Mar 2011 05:43:24 -0000
Received: (qmail 12281 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Mar 2011 05:43:24 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 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-iy0-f169.google.com (HELO mail-iy0-f169.google.com) (209.85.210.169)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 07 Mar 2011 05:43:20 +0000
Received: by iyf13 with SMTP id 13so5049319iyf.0        for <binutils@sourceware.org>; Sun, 06 Mar 2011 21:43:18 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.43.62.71 with SMTP id wz7mr2473728icb.511.1299476598579; Sun, 06 Mar 2011 21:43:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.42.145.136 with HTTP; Sun, 6 Mar 2011 21:43:18 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20110307035457.GL6275@bubble.grove.modra.org>
References: <AANLkTik8iLbOA9=EU-mnPn+7ZvCco+x4sdwGwRAY-pqQ@mail.gmail.com>	<201103070328.p273S2rm023864@ignucius.se.axis.com>	<20110307035457.GL6275@bubble.grove.modra.org>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 05:43:00 -0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=4P8-_0esD=kqjarbph65HUwFBZ3XA5tvOHC0Z@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: PATCH: Mention symbol name in non-constant .size expression
From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@gmail.com>
To: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hans-peter.nilsson@axis.com>, hp@axis.com, binutils@sourceware.org
Cc: Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <binutils.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:binutils-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/>
List-Post: <mailto:binutils@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:binutils-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: binutils-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-03/txt/msg00094.txt.bz2

On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>

Done.


-- 
H.J.