On Wed, 20 Mar 2013, Rainer Orth wrote: > Tobias Burnus <bur...@net-b.de> writes: > > > Rainer Orth wrote: > >> As discussed in PR fortran/54932, the gfortran.dg/do_1.f90 execution > >> tests recently stated to XPASS at all optimization levels, adding lots > >> of testsuite noise. The following patch removes the xfail, allowing all > >> tests to pass. > >> > >> Tested with the appropriate runtest invocations on > >> x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu, i386-pc-solaris2.11, and > >> sparc-sun-solaris2.11. Ok for mainline and 4.8 branch? > > > > Removing the xfail is okay. However, I wonder whether it would be better to > > leave a reference to the PR in case the failure pops up again. As the code > > is ill-defined, the failures might pop up in the future and the reference > > can help with analysis. > > I prefer to leave the PR reference removed. If the failure crops up > again, it's a simple matter of looking at the ChangeLog, svn annotate, > or bugzilla to discover the bug, if not, we keep the obsolete comment > forever. > > > OK - as is or with an updated reference to the PR. ? For the branch, it is > > the RMs' call when it can be committed. > > Jakub, Richard?
It's fine now. Thanks, Rchard. > > Please wait with the committal until GCC's web mail archive works again for > > gcc-cvs. > > Done. > > Thanks. > Rainer > > > >> 2013-03-19 Rainer Orth <r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de> > >> > >> PR fortran/54932 > >> * gfortran.dg/do_1.f90: Don't xfail. > > -- Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> SUSE / SUSE Labs SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nuernberg - AG Nuernberg - HRB 16746 GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend
