https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79427
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79427
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu |powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79427
John David Anglin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79427
--- Comment #4 from Dominik Vogt ---
See here for discussion of this bug report:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-02/msg00666.html
And here for discussion of the patch:
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-02/msg00446.html
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79427
--- Comment #3 from Dominik Vogt ---
The xfail was removed from the test because it caused an XPASS on many systems.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79427
--- Comment #2 from seurer at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I checked and on the first system where I noticed this glibc is the distro
(Ubuntu 14.04) default 2.17. Other Be systems where it also failed are that or
older.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79427
--- Comment #1 from Segher Boessenkool ---
I get the correct output on BE (gcc110). This is glibc 2.18, maybe
that is the difference?
