From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jeffrey A Law <law@cygnus.com>
To: richard.earnshaw@arm.com
Cc: rearnsha@sun52.arm.com, egcs@cygnus.com
Subject: Re: Will the consistent failures in EGCS be fixed soon? 
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 09:25:00 -0000
Message-id: <28373.898789342@hurl.cygnus.com>
References: <199806251153.MAA14147@sun52.NIS.cambridge>
X-SW-Source: 1998-06/msg00904.html

  In message < 199806251153.MAA14147@sun52.NIS.cambridge >you write:
  > > The loop* things aren't likely to be addressed anytime soon.  They
  > > are horribly obscure problems that nobody is likely to ever trigger
  > > unless they go look at the gcc source code and specifically write
  > > code to trigger a specific problem in the loop optimizer.
  > > 
  > > There's also an alias bug in the testsuite that we aren't actively
  > > working on, but we do want to keep the test because we do want to
  > > fix the problem at some point.
  > > 
  > 
  > So shouldn't these be marked as XFAILs?  Then I won't waste time looking 
  > into the failure in case it is a port problem.
It would be nice, but we don't have the capability to xfail a test
based on certain optimization levels or whatever multilib is in
effect.

It's not at all uncommon for those tests to only fail for one or
two particular optimization levels.

The best solution is to fix the compiler :-) :-)

jeffa