From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 716 invoked by alias); 3 Oct 2002 00:26:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 702 invoked by uid 71); 3 Oct 2002 00:26:01 -0000 Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 17:26:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20021003002601.701.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: target/8087: sparc-sun-solaris2.7 C testsuite failures in execute/20020720-1.c w/-m64 or on sparcv9/sparc64 Reply-To: "David S. Miller" X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00074.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR target/8087; it has been noted by GNATS. From: "David S. Miller" To: ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu Cc: roger@eyesopen.com, rth@redhat.com, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, jakub@redhat.com Subject: Re: target/8087: sparc-sun-solaris2.7 C testsuite failures in execute/20020720-1.c w/-m64 or on sparcv9/sparc64 Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 17:09:47 -0700 (PDT) From: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:46:13 -0400 (EDT) So what does that mean with respect to addressing the testcase? Fixable? XFAIL it? It think it would be rediculious to mark such a simple piece of C code as XFAIL on any platform. Roger reverted his changes it appears, so it should pass now.