From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 61703 invoked by alias); 20 Jun 2018 12:50:38 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 61687 invoked by uid 89); 20 Jun 2018 12:50:38 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=heads, our X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 12:50:37 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 06D7340122B1; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 12:50:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-87.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.87]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C0242026D6B; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 12:50:34 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 12:50:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Sergio Durigan Junior Subject: Re: New FAIL gdb.base/float128.exp on ppc64le [Re: [RFC v2][2/2] Target FP: Make use of MPFR if available] Message-ID: <20180620125031.GA1067098@host1.jankratochvil.net> References: <20180620085525.GA2001322@host1.jankratochvil.net> <20180620123330.A6938D80294@oc3748833570.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180620123330.A6938D80294@oc3748833570.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.0 (2018-05-17) X-SW-Source: 2018-06/txt/msg00491.txt.bz2 On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 14:33:30 +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > A result of "inf" instead of the large number is exactly the problem that > is fixed by using MPFR. So I'm wondering: is the GDB that shows the FAIL > actually built against MPFR? If at build time MPFR was not detected, > then this failure is exactly what you'd expect ... Thanks for the heads up, our GDB build was really missing this dependency. Still maybe the testcase should contain such explanation of the FAIL. Moreover maybe it could be an XFAIL. Thanks, Jan