On Wed, Oct 28, 2020 at 11:35:07PM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote: > Alan, > > It is disrespectful for you to ignore the review of a maintainer and > your colleague. You may not pick and choose amongst maintainers. And > Segher should not be so disrespectful as to contradict his colleague > and co-maintainer.
I'm sorry you see this as a matter of respect. I didn't see it that way at all. Segher disagreed with your review, and gave sufficient technical reason for me to commit the patch. > I replied no to your patch and requested a different solution -- one > that does not require significant effort. Please fix this testcase > the way that I requested. I am not going to do as you demand. Those tests are clearly commented as "VSX Linux 64-bit" tests. Ignoring that comment and changing them to make them run for AIX and Darwin plainly requires that I test those changes, which often results in significant effort building cross-compilers. If you wish them to run for AIX targets then that is your job as an AIX maintainer. Don't expect me to do the work. Incidentally, this is the result of your recent commit 122f0db2793 on powerpc64-linux biarch. +FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/signbit-1.c scan-assembler-not stxvd2x +FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/signbit-1.c scan-assembler-times mfvsrd 3 +FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/signbit-1.c scan-assembler-times srdi 3 +FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/signbit-2.c scan-assembler-times ld 1 +FAIL: gcc.target/powerpc/signbit-2.c scan-assembler-times srdi 1 I'm not complaining about that, or demanding that you fix those fails; In fact I'm in the middle of fixing them. But they do quite perfectly illustrate that tweaking the testsuite is never simple. -- Alan Modra Australia Development Lab, IBM
