From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 35998 invoked by alias); 30 Jun 2015 15:21:05 -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 35984 invoked by uid 89); 30 Jun 2015 15:21:04 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-pd0-f172.google.com Received: from mail-pd0-f172.google.com (HELO mail-pd0-f172.google.com) (209.85.192.172) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 15:21:03 +0000 Received: by pdcu2 with SMTP id u2so7991386pdc.3 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 08:21:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.70.32.33 with SMTP id f1mr17883723pdi.44.1435677660789; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 08:21:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from E107787-LIN (gcc1-power7.osuosl.org. [140.211.15.137]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ia3sm45911757pbc.31.2015.06.30.08.20.57 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 30 Jun 2015 08:20:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Yao Qi To: Andreas Arnez Cc: Doug Evans , Yao Qi , Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches Subject: Re: Several regressions and we branch soon. References: <86r3p1queo.fsf@gmail.com> <87lhf8yz90.fsf@br87z6lw.de.ibm.com> <87a8vnzmzy.fsf@br87z6lw.de.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 15:21:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <87a8vnzmzy.fsf@br87z6lw.de.ibm.com> (Andreas Arnez's message of "Thu, 25 Jun 2015 20:00:49 +0200") Message-ID: <86twtpp6i0.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-06/txt/msg00648.txt.bz2 Andreas Arnez writes: > Right, this was considered in the patch. But only what I've actually > seen fail in my testing is marked as KFAIL. Since more FAILs are > observed now, maybe we could mark them as KFAIL as well. Or skip them > altogether, like in the patch below. WDYT? I am inclined to skip them altogether, but I think we need skip more. With your patch applied, I still see them in gdb.sum KFAIL: gdb.base/gnu_vector.exp: call add_some_intvecs (PRMS: gdb/18537) KPASS: gdb.base/gnu_vector.exp: call add_many_charvecs (PRMS gdb/18537) KFAIL: gdb.base/gnu_vector.exp: call add_various_floatvecs (PRMS: gdb/1853= 7) KFAIL: gdb.base/gnu_vector.exp: call add_structvecs (PRMS: gdb/18537) KFAIL: gdb.base/gnu_vector.exp: skip remaining vector ABI tests on this ar= ch (PRMS: gdb/18537) KPASS is confusing here. I'd like to skip all of them on x86 and emit UNSUPPORTED in gdb.sum, because we've already know that vector infcall doesn't support on x86, UNSUPPORTED is better than KFAIL, IMO. --=20 Yao (=E9=BD=90=E5=B0=A7)