From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1193 invoked by alias); 7 Jan 2002 21:24:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 1152 invoked from network); 7 Jan 2002 21:24:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 7 Jan 2002 21:24:28 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16NhGY-0008JT-00 for ; Mon, 07 Jan 2002 16:25:10 -0500 Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 13:24:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Remove some obsolete gcc xfails from overload.exp Message-ID: <20020107162510.A31845@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200201072108.g07L8ps30440@fred.ninemoons.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200201072108.g07L8ps30440@fred.ninemoons.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00113.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 02:08:51PM -0700, Fred Fish wrote: > Some of the gcc xfails in overload.exp seem to be obsolete. The > xfailed tests currently pass with the development gdb using the latest > development gcc, and also with the released gdb-5.1.0.1 using the > released gcc-3.0.3. [I can't approve this, but...] these look right to me. I'm going to try to fix the remainder of the XFAILS in this file; we shouldn't be botching any of them. I fixed most of these tests several weeks ago; thanks for updating the testsuite. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer