On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 12:51 -0400, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Steve Ellcey wrote:
>
> > I will check in this testsuite fix as obvious if there are no objections.
>
> But... :)
> JFTR, if you want this to be really right, you should not xfail
> this part of the test but rath
On Fri, 10 Jun 2011, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> I will check in this testsuite fix as obvious if there are no objections.
But... :)
> On IA64 and HPPA the test generates global declarations for the function
> as well as calls so the scan-assembler-times fails because it finds the
> declarations as we
On Jun 10, 2011, at 9:28 AM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> I will check in this testsuite fix as obvious if there are no objections.
Thanks for the comments. When doing a port, having a comment on other port's
issues with a testcase, is useful, as you get to say, gosh, I'm in that class
too, and just b
I will check in this testsuite fix as obvious if there are no objections.
On IA64 and HPPA the test generates global declarations for the function
as well as calls so the scan-assembler-times fails because it finds the
declarations as well as the two calls. The fix is to make the scans more
specif
