From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 53658 invoked by alias); 20 Jun 2018 13:47:20 -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 53648 invoked by uid 89); 20 Jun 2018 13:47:19 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy= 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 13:47:19 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8EFDB8790F; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 13:47:17 +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 4E4737C24; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 13:47:15 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 13:47:00 -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: <20180620134713.GA1743667@host1.jankratochvil.net> References: <20180620125031.GA1067098@host1.jankratochvil.net> <20180620133905.5B634D80294@oc3748833570.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180620133905.5B634D80294@oc3748833570.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.0 (2018-05-17) X-SW-Source: 2018-06/txt/msg00493.txt.bz2 On Wed, 20 Jun 2018 15:39:05 +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > Jan Kratochvil wrote: > > Still maybe the testcase should contain such explanation of the FAIL. > > Agreed. The attached patch adds a comment, and also updates the FAIL > message to indicate possible lack of MPFR support as reason. Does > this look good to you? Yes, thanks. Jan