>>> Should we just remove it for the time being? >> >> Is there a way to put it in an x86 specific directory? > > I think Reid tried to fix this in r213180 by passing the --target flag > to this test. > > But it's still failing further down, e.g. > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-ppc64-elf-linux2/builds/15641/steps/check-all/logs/Clang%3A%3Acl-x86-flags.c > > We could sprinkle more --target options in there, but it's starting to > look weird when we're passing both a --target and /arch: flag, for > example. Maybe we can make lit support REQUIRES: x86-default-target?
Adding Alp to this discussion, as last year, he expressed his strong reservations against target-triple-specific tests: > There's already a tendency amongst some contributors to avoid thinking > about portability using XFAIL, but at least with XFAIL we have a chance > to detect those even if it takes a few months or years for somebody to > notice. With REQUIRES, those tests won't even get run. > > [...] > > There are just too many tests switched off today with REQUIRES because > the author was too lazy to make their feature portable, or because at a > later point someone broke the test and found it easier to disable it > than fix the problem. > > [...] > > PS. I'd like to remove the target_triple feature from XFAIL as well at > some point. It has almost no legitimate users. _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
