From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11116 invoked by alias); 6 Nov 2002 10:19:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 11108 invoked from network); 6 Nov 2002 10:19:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com) (193.131.176.3) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Nov 2002 10:19:51 -0000 Received: by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com; id KAA21184; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 10:19:49 GMT Received: from unknown(172.16.1.2) by fw-cam.cambridge.arm.com via smap (V5.5) id xma020341; Wed, 6 Nov 02 10:18:49 GMT Received: from pc960.cambridge.arm.com (pc960.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.205.4]) by cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA20612; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 10:18:47 GMT Received: from pc960.cambridge.arm.com (rearnsha@localhost) by pc960.cambridge.arm.com (8.11.6/8.9.3) with ESMTP id gA6AIjK18154; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 10:18:45 GMT Message-Id: <200211061018.gA6AIjK18154@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> X-Authentication-Warning: pc960.cambridge.arm.com: rearnsha owned process doing -bs To: Adam Nemet cc: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, nickc@redhat.com, rearnsha@arm.com Reply-To: Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com Organization: ARM Ltd. X-Telephone: +44 1223 400569 (direct+voicemail), +44 1223 400400 (switchbd) X-Fax: +44 1223 400410 X-Address: ARM Ltd., 110 Fulbourn Road, Cherry Hinton, Cambridge CB1 9NJ. Subject: Re: [PATCH, arm] Fix XFAIL in gcc.c-torture/execute/941014-1.x In-reply-to: Your message of "05 Nov 2002 11:26:40 PST." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 02:19:00 -0000 From: Richard Earnshaw X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00267.txt.bz2 > > > 2002-10-29 Adam Nemet > > > > > > * gcc.c-torture/execute/941014-1.x: thumb-elf was deprecated, use > > > -mthumb. Only xfail with -O0. > > > > OK > > This testsuite bug is also present on the branch (thumb*-*-* was > already deprecated in 3.2). Is this OK to the branch? No, generally we don't change things of that nature at this point of such a branch. R.