xfail Array_3

xfail Array_3

[Geoffrey Keating]

It looks like this isn't going to be fixed any time soon, so let's
xfail it.

Tested with 'make check-target-libjava' on ppc-darwin8.

-- 
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@apple.com>

===File ~/patches/libjava-testsuite-array3xfail.patch=======
2005-12-01  Geoffrey Keating  <geoffk@apple.com>

	* testsuite/lib/libjava.exp (test_libjava_from_javac): Support
	xfail-byte-exec.
	* testsuite/libjava.lang/Array_3.xfail: New file.

Index: libjava/testsuite/libjava.lang/Array_3.xfail
===================================================================
--- libjava/testsuite/libjava.lang/Array_3.xfail	(revision 0)
+++ libjava/testsuite/libjava.lang/Array_3.xfail	(revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+xfail-byte-exec
Index: libjava/testsuite/lib/libjava.exp
===================================================================
--- libjava/testsuite/lib/libjava.exp	(revision 107736)
+++ libjava/testsuite/lib/libjava.exp	(working copy)
@@ -871,6 +871,9 @@
     pass "$errname compilation from bytecode"
 
     # Set up the options the way they are expected by libjava_invoke.
+    if {[info exists opts(xfail-byte-exec)]} {
+	set opts(xfail-exec) x
+    }
     if {[info exists opts(xfail-byte-output)]} {
 	set opts(xfail-output) x
     }
@@ -896,6 +899,8 @@
 #                 front end.
 #   `xfail-byte'  compilation from bytecode will fail
 #   `xfail-exec'  exec will fail
+#   `xfail-byte-exec'
+#		  exec will fail when compiled from bytecode
 #   `xfail-output'
 #                 output will be wrong
 #   `xfail-byte-output'
============================================================

Re: xfail Array_3

[David S. Miller]

From: gkeating@apple.com (Geoffrey Keating)
Date: Thu,  1 Dec 2005 00:23:39 -0800 (PST)

> It looks like this isn't going to be fixed any time soon, so let's
> xfail it.
> 
> Tested with 'make check-target-libjava' on ppc-darwin8.

I thought we didn't xfail things just because the fix is
hard and/or might not get worked on for a while?

Can you point me to a thread describing the cause?  I've
seen this one forever on sparc, but I thought it did pass
on some platforms.

Thanks.

Re: xfail Array_3

[Alan Modra]

On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 01:09:22AM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
> From: gkeating@apple.com (Geoffrey Keating)
> Date: Thu,  1 Dec 2005 00:23:39 -0800 (PST)
> 
> > It looks like this isn't going to be fixed any time soon, so let's
> > xfail it.
> > 
> > Tested with 'make check-target-libjava' on ppc-darwin8.
> 
> I thought we didn't xfail things just because the fix is
> hard and/or might not get worked on for a while?
> 
> Can you point me to a thread describing the cause?  I've
> seen this one forever on sparc, but I thought it did pass
> on some platforms.

PR25176.  A quick fix is relatively easy.  And yes, it does pass on some
platforms.

-- 
Alan Modra
IBM OzLabs - Linux Technology Centre

Re: xfail Array_3

[Geoffrey Keating]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 691 bytes --]


On 01/12/2005, at 1:09 AM, David S. Miller wrote:

> From: gkeating@apple.com (Geoffrey Keating)
> Date: Thu,  1 Dec 2005 00:23:39 -0800 (PST)
>
>> It looks like this isn't going to be fixed any time soon, so let's
>> xfail it.
>>
>> Tested with 'make check-target-libjava' on ppc-darwin8.
>
> I thought we didn't xfail things just because the fix is
> hard and/or might not get worked on for a while?

What do you think our xfail policy is?

> Can you point me to a thread describing the cause?  I've
> seen this one forever on sparc, but I thought it did pass
> on some platforms.

The bugzilla has been mentioned, but see also <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/ 
gcc-patches/2005-03/msg00465.html>.

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 2408 bytes --]

Re: xfail Array_3

[Janis Johnson]

On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 07:50:55PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 01:09:22AM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
> > From: gkeating@apple.com (Geoffrey Keating)
> > Date: Thu,  1 Dec 2005 00:23:39 -0800 (PST)
> > 
> > > It looks like this isn't going to be fixed any time soon, so let's
> > > xfail it.
> > > 
> > > Tested with 'make check-target-libjava' on ppc-darwin8.
> > 
> > I thought we didn't xfail things just because the fix is
> > hard and/or might not get worked on for a while?
> > 
> > Can you point me to a thread describing the cause?  I've
> > seen this one forever on sparc, but I thought it did pass
> > on some platforms.
> 
> PR25176.  A quick fix is relatively easy.  And yes, it does pass on some
> platforms.

Tests should only be xfail if there is a PR describing the problem.
Geoff, please add a comment with the PR number by the xfail.

Janis

Re: xfail Array_3

[Geoff Keating]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1006 bytes --]


On 01/12/2005, at 9:27 AM, Janis Johnson wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 07:50:55PM +1030, Alan Modra wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 01:09:22AM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
>>> From: gkeating@apple.com (Geoffrey Keating)
>>> Date: Thu,  1 Dec 2005 00:23:39 -0800 (PST)
>>>
>>>> It looks like this isn't going to be fixed any time soon, so let's
>>>> xfail it.
>>>>
>>>> Tested with 'make check-target-libjava' on ppc-darwin8.
>>>
>>> I thought we didn't xfail things just because the fix is
>>> hard and/or might not get worked on for a while?
>>>
>>> Can you point me to a thread describing the cause?  I've
>>> seen this one forever on sparc, but I thought it did pass
>>> on some platforms.
>>
>> PR25176.  A quick fix is relatively easy.  And yes, it does pass  
>> on some
>> platforms.
>
> Tests should only be xfail if there is a PR describing the problem.
> Geoff, please add a comment with the PR number by the xfail.

Where, exactly?  Comments are not allowed in the file that I changed.


[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 2408 bytes --]

Re: xfail Array_3

[Janis Johnson]

On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 04:52:42PM -0800, Geoff Keating wrote:
> On 01/12/2005, at 9:27 AM, Janis Johnson wrote:
> >Tests should only be xfail if there is a PR describing the problem.
> >Geoff, please add a comment with the PR number by the xfail.
> 
> Where, exactly?  Comments are not allowed in the file that I changed.

Before I looked into this the fix was approved, so it's no longer relevant.
It's a good question, though.

Janis

Re: xfail Array_3

[Andrew Haley]

Janis Johnson writes:
 > On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 04:52:42PM -0800, Geoff Keating wrote:
 > > On 01/12/2005, at 9:27 AM, Janis Johnson wrote:
 > > >Tests should only be xfail if there is a PR describing the problem.
 > > >Geoff, please add a comment with the PR number by the xfail.
 > > 
 > > Where, exactly?  Comments are not allowed in the file that I changed.
 > 
 > Before I looked into this the fix was approved, so it's no longer relevant.

Right.

Massive thanks to Geoff for raising this issue and to Alan Modra for
fixing it.

Andrew.

Re: xfail Array_3

[Ranjit Mathew]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Geoffrey Keating wrote:
> It looks like this isn't going to be fixed any time soon, so let's
> xfail it.
> 
> Tested with 'make check-target-libjava' on ppc-darwin8.

This seems to have been fixed across platforms by Alan
Modra, right? Can this XFAIL be removed now?

Thanks,
Ranjit.

- --
Ranjit Mathew      Email: rmathew AT gmail DOT com

Bangalore, INDIA.    Web: http://ranjitmathew.hostingzero.com/


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDlXqZYb1hx2wRS48RAm9sAKCmpg0sZzaPQJ+kqFupjPciKrVEigCggXmP
1v98gO/Lci6SMFiwKrutnT0=
=8v/D
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: xfail Array_3

[Geoffrey Keating]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 435 bytes --]


On 06/12/2005, at 3:48 AM, Ranjit Mathew wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Geoffrey Keating wrote:
>
>> It looks like this isn't going to be fixed any time soon, so let's
>> xfail it.
>>
>> Tested with 'make check-target-libjava' on ppc-darwin8.
>>
>
> This seems to have been fixed across platforms by Alan
> Modra, right? Can this XFAIL be removed now?

Sure, if it no longer fails the XFAIL should go.


[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 2408 bytes --]

Re: xfail Array_3

[Ranjit Mathew]

On 12/7/05, Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@apple.com> wrote:
>
> On 06/12/2005, at 3:48 AM, Ranjit Mathew wrote:
> >
> > Geoffrey Keating wrote:
> >
> >> It looks like this isn't going to be fixed any time soon, so let's
> >> xfail it.
> >>
> >> Tested with 'make check-target-libjava' on ppc-darwin8.
> >>
> >
> > This seems to have been fixed across platforms by Alan
> > Modra, right? Can this XFAIL be removed now?
>
> Sure, if it no longer fails the XFAIL should go.

Since you added this, can you please remove
it now? It seems that it passes on both
i686-pc-linux-gnu and powerpc-apple-darwin
and other platforms:

  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-12/msg00740.html
  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-12/msg00781.html
  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-12/msg00757.html
  http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-12/msg00761.html

Thanks,
Ranjit.

--
Ranjit Mathew      Email: rmathew AT gmail DOT com

Bangalore, INDIA.    Web: http://ranjitmathew.hostingzero.com/

Re: xfail Array_3

[Alan Modra]

Fixed.
	* testsuite/lib/libjava.exp: Revert 2005-12-01.
	* testsuite/libjava.lang/Array_3.xfail: Delete.

-- 
Alan Modra
IBM OzLabs - Linux Technology Centre

Re: xfail Array_3

[Geoffrey Keating]

Alan Modra <amodra@bigpond.net.au> writes:

> Fixed.
> 	* testsuite/lib/libjava.exp: Revert 2005-12-01.
> 	* testsuite/libjava.lang/Array_3.xfail: Delete.

Was there some reason to remove functionality from the test framework
as well as just removing the xfail?

Re: xfail Array_3

[Alan Modra]

On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 02:29:33PM -0800, Geoff Keating wrote:
> Alan Modra <amodra@bigpond.net.au> writes:
> 
> > Fixed.
> > 	* testsuite/lib/libjava.exp: Revert 2005-12-01.
> > 	* testsuite/libjava.lang/Array_3.xfail: Delete.
> 
> Was there some reason to remove functionality from the test framework
> as well as just removing the xfail?

Just tidying up.  If you or any of the java maintainers feel that the
extra functionality is useful other than to support Array_3.xfail, then
I'm happy to put it back.

-- 
Alan Modra
IBM OzLabs - Linux Technology Centre