Hi Dominik, >> I think that addresses most all known issues. I'll pre-appove >> any additional targets people find as trivial. For example, if >> darwin10 doesn't pass, then *-*-darwin10* would be fine to add >> if that fixes the issue. I don't happen to have one that old to >> just test on. > > Here's a case of the test failing now: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79427 > > Powerpc64 BE with glibc-2.17 (2.18 reported to work). I'd be > inclined to reply "upgrade Glibc to get rid of the FAIL" as that > is what the test is supposed to find after all. What do you > think?
agreed, that's what I usually do myself in similar situations. Unless you can easily check for the difference (like check for the presence of a function or facility), I let the test PASS on the newer version and live with the failure on older ones. The strange thing is that the test also passes on targets like darwin > 10 or AIX which certainly don't have __cxa_thread_atexit in libc. For some reason, the fallback implementation in libstdc++/libsupc++ isn't enough... Rainer -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University