From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A4213856DDD for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 09:25:49 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 6A4213856DDD Received: from mail-ed1-f71.google.com (mail-ed1-f71.google.com [209.85.208.71]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-113-VN7BRvV-O8WFrh-5MEcwNw-1; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 05:25:47 -0400 X-MC-Unique: VN7BRvV-O8WFrh-5MEcwNw-1 Received: by mail-ed1-f71.google.com with SMTP id x8-20020a056402414800b0042d8498f50aso15334828eda.23 for ; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 02:25:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=0VelsspI317t2wii8urRntTdIiVxfzazeJebOCuBrks=; b=BR3DPzgI5hDvwvSXE6UyNv0ZCD7vQfLtjQSyleF9MvB1KLFQ5IpRdGN/cPqsAY8Cmn 5tRdJsBk/Z5CvCEkD7n8hsKgj1j0A6I+nqJCLnP25mCIrHN8lbePJMRR5lY9Mas5WZHq KZCZOlcaOr84LCN2d0vXzIqs1+tf49F4hcEBCq5RJYMIsqZHwk+7M+dUZCCxGjx7cRuT KOnl0qOgGaJzjfNhn04jNWCxqpa2seD1WYSXetgfKtg6T9U8rp8WE300VVVEQStXG0Do d7uB8PnnFPaFDmVeXZ3AOi6RhChpdIokgC1mgnbFFShHqAM5qTo1W/oYtwpXD4OLuap4 dxMg== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora+gBTsM0q+wxL3YGiHfbWxEbtbh/LvTQWgyQQ1SQXVPDkp5y7oA PmiO+zlcKbw5kLRmXT4w8lYkA4fnUX57sVx4dr8aSrn++BAaWOuZP1XTFlRa5Z19ysEbQ+cm60l hoIPP6oJO3ZvNEDFPrllKxAKcOCu0PH4= X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:9491:b0:722:f2a1:efb6 with SMTP id dm17-20020a170907949100b00722f2a1efb6mr6637629ejc.284.1655976346748; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 02:25:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1thhYzH18cZ0GCAaUmttU7vtr5Jlj2cM/1PBWjZe1q9/cYjsvr373vsTVf1BdsmAHvnhMZL7/Zd0VXNhQvC+w8= X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:9491:b0:722:f2a1:efb6 with SMTP id dm17-20020a170907949100b00722f2a1efb6mr6637613ejc.284.1655976346543; Thu, 23 Jun 2022 02:25:46 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4fe20709-e617-7644-175c-bd49b52dc6c2@embedded-brains.de> In-Reply-To: From: Jonathan Wakely Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 10:25:35 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] libstdc++: testsuite: fs rename to self may fail To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: Sebastian Huber , "libstdc++" , gcc Patches , RTEMS X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libstdc++ mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 09:25:51 -0000 On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 at 07:26, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > This feels more and more like a case for xfail until it gets fixed in > the kernel, where atomic filesystem operations belong :-( > > Would a patch to add: > > // { dg-xfail-if "::rename is not POSIX-compliant" { target *-*-rtems* } } > > to rename.cc tests be acceptable? I'm afraid I can't go further down > this rabbit hole, and my choices ATM seem to be limited to XFAIL > patches, whether accepted by the GCC community or carried internally. Yes, I think that's definitely the way to go.