> That is true, but nothing really happened during the 5 months that the tests > have been failing on many other architectures (except that powerpc and arm > had skipped those tests). There has been a PR open for all those 5 months.
So what? This is not the first example and I don't see anything special with it. You or maintainers can decide to XFAIL particular architectures at will, but hiding the failures by default is IMO not appropriate. > We can perhaps revert the skips after branching GCC 11 off, but I have > little hope other target maintainers will do what you did, so unsure if it > would help. And the changes need people familiar with each of the backends > to decide what needs to be done and what is doable. That's exactly the same situation as for -fstack-usage/-Wstack-usage, where I intentionally made gcc.dg/stack-usage-1.c fail by default so that maintainers could add the missing bits; this worked relatively well. -- Eric Botcazou
