From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16237 invoked by alias); 7 Jan 2011 19:16:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 16226 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Jan 2011 19:16:52 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,TW_BJ X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 07 Jan 2011 19:16:48 +0000 From: "ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug objc/45989] Some objc.dg-struct-layout-encoding-1 tests XPASS X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: objc X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2011 19:39:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-01/txt/msg00649.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45989 --- Comment #8 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-01-07 19:16:42 UTC --- > --- Comment #7 from Dominique d'Humieres 2011-01-05 22:31:14 UTC --- >> * We should use i?86*-*-* (or perhaps just i?86-*-*, I see no reason for the >> first *). > > I don't think this cover x86_64-*-*, this is why I have tested *86*-*-* Indeed, had forgotten about that. In that case, we should do as everywhere else in the testsuite and explicitly list i?86-*-* and x86_64-*-*. Just *86*-*-* is too general (there was a sparcle86 or something, I think :-). >> * The comment should be updated (perhaps with PR #s) to provide documentation >> for the XFAILed changes. > > See the end of comment #2. This should probably addressed by the objc > maintainers. Probably, and hopefully the will do so once we finally propose the patch and get approval. With the exception of x86_64 handling above, we're good to go, I think. Rainer