From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 679313856DC8 for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 09:25:49 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 679313856DC8 Received: from mail-ed1-f71.google.com (mail-ed1-f71.google.com [209.85.208.71]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-211-H3X64RATNpqmIw74jeVqKw-1; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 05:25:47 -0400 X-MC-Unique: H3X64RATNpqmIw74jeVqKw-1 Received: by mail-ed1-f71.google.com with SMTP id w14-20020a056402268e00b0043556edda4dso14566101edd.0 for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 02:25:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=0VelsspI317t2wii8urRntTdIiVxfzazeJebOCuBrks=; b=6UQ1bDiS1VEo/GwZ+laIFPEGV5tx5q9s3RrzfKBIJOrcXDpLGesDu2naTGdpLmIo63 tpFMBOIk3dfKiTdPh6Sg0Pq5gsh6eBTawHCCsOhLHNyfZnidrKewIDKfPt9R/cAO7TU3 J3bicDFgS//H+vxePc06Vk8D9a6pw66BK1jQ9Tmp03NLwvwXUBmGxcGYxz9X7A3CeXLo zdiUgsLP2XtCERjsDOfaUWpqXeN2fAo5S6FROYDbzv7O8u7mcBXbQt0ZWZdct37q8OtP EbC46WVwJ+kNCrweqegagL77kEO93fuJqyCVX4YqdiWyR/vlL+IIzOrQDsJCadfkom6N REaA== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora8Xondxj9Uj4RPys3TI6j8qrYaXNQZJIII7hKA6s8FBuzPfMam7 5JsBx6OPtssuOXWBDgodNvw6Q+UM8bofKP37vnwzk1Xih5c6Jh7e4vwnhpDVXOFTRFwCxtf+urK ttUXm4jHnfPgNhrNvrhDS65Bn3MWFGeEgFg== X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:9491:b0:722:f2a1:efb6 with SMTP id dm17-20020a170907949100b00722f2a1efb6mr6637625ejc.284.1655976346726; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 02:25:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1thhYzH18cZ0GCAaUmttU7vtr5Jlj2cM/1PBWjZe1q9/cYjsvr373vsTVf1BdsmAHvnhMZL7/Zd0VXNhQvC+w8= X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:9491:b0:722:f2a1:efb6 with SMTP id dm17-20020a170907949100b00722f2a1efb6mr6637613ejc.284.1655976346543; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 02:25:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4fe20709-e617-7644-175c-bd49b52dc6c2@embedded-brains.de> In-Reply-To: From: Jonathan Wakely Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 10:25:35 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] libstdc++: testsuite: fs rename to self may fail To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: Sebastian Huber , "libstdc++" , gcc Patches , RTEMS X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 09:25:51 -0000 On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 at 07:26, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > This feels more and more like a case for xfail until it gets fixed in > the kernel, where atomic filesystem operations belong :-( > > Would a patch to add: > > // { dg-xfail-if "::rename is not POSIX-compliant" { target *-*-rtems* } } > > to rename.cc tests be acceptable? I'm afraid I can't go further down > this rabbit hole, and my choices ATM seem to be limited to XFAIL > patches, whether accepted by the GCC community or carried internally. Yes, I think that's definitely the way to go.