From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31855 invoked by alias); 3 Oct 2002 15:06:02 -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 31836 invoked by uid 71); 3 Oct 2002 15:06:02 -0000 Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2002 08:06:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20021003150602.31796.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" Subject: Re: target/8087: sparc-sun-solaris2.7 C testsuite failures in execute/20020720-1.c w/-m64 or on sparcv9/sparc64 Reply-To: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00102.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR target/8087; it has been noted by GNATS. From: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" To: davem@redhat.com Cc: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, jakub@redhat.com, roger@eyesopen.com, rth@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: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:05:41 -0400 (EDT) > From: "David S. Miller" > > 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. Er, I don't think what Roger reverted had anything to do with this testcase, e.g. I still get the failure with -m64 from last night's CVS bootstrap. Roger? -- Kaveh R. Ghazi ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu