| Message ID | 1453400116.4592.11.camel@localhost.localdomain |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Jan 21, 2016, at 10:15 AM, Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2016-01-21 at 10:06 -0800, Mike Stump wrote: >> On Jan 21, 2016, at 9:29 AM, Dominique d'Humières <dominiq@lps.ens.fr> wrote: >>> // { dg-do run { target { ! { *-*-darwin* powerpc-ibm-aix* } } } } >> >> A comment to hint that this has something to do with weak undefined would be nice. > > Here's the patch I prepared (which indeed includes a comment). > > OK for trunk? I'm not quite sure whether this qualifies as a > regression, but having an additional test that now fails is one I guess. > <libitm-safeexc-unsupported.patch> A simple testsuite fixup like this is still ok. From a darwin, AIX perspective it is fine. If either the transaction or the libstdc++ people like it, I think we’re set.
On 21/01/16 10:19 -0800, Mike Stump wrote: >On Jan 21, 2016, at 10:15 AM, Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 2016-01-21 at 10:06 -0800, Mike Stump wrote: >>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 9:29 AM, Dominique d'Humières <dominiq@lps.ens.fr> wrote: >>>> // { dg-do run { target { ! { *-*-darwin* powerpc-ibm-aix* } } } } >>> >>> A comment to hint that this has something to do with weak undefined would be nice. >> >> Here's the patch I prepared (which indeed includes a comment). >> >> OK for trunk? I'm not quite sure whether this qualifies as a >> regression, but having an additional test that now fails is one I guess. >> <libitm-safeexc-unsupported.patch> > >A simple testsuite fixup like this is still ok. From a darwin, AIX perspective it is fine. If either the transaction or the libstdc++ people like it, I think we’re set. OK from the libstdc++ side.
On Thu, 2016-01-21 at 18:26 +0000, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 21/01/16 10:19 -0800, Mike Stump wrote: > >On Jan 21, 2016, at 10:15 AM, Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, 2016-01-21 at 10:06 -0800, Mike Stump wrote: > >>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 9:29 AM, Dominique d'Humières <dominiq@lps.ens.fr> wrote: > >>>> // { dg-do run { target { ! { *-*-darwin* powerpc-ibm-aix* } } } } > >>> > >>> A comment to hint that this has something to do with weak undefined would be nice. > >> > >> Here's the patch I prepared (which indeed includes a comment). > >> > >> OK for trunk? I'm not quite sure whether this qualifies as a > >> regression, but having an additional test that now fails is one I guess. > >> <libitm-safeexc-unsupported.patch> > > > >A simple testsuite fixup like this is still ok. From a darwin, AIX perspective it is fine. If either the transaction or the libstdc++ people like it, I think we’re set. > > OK from the libstdc++ side. > Committed.
commit 0323fed14832e5744cbc63bcfeeb6728f7f13394
Author: Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com>
Date: Thu Jan 21 16:21:33 2016 +0100
libitm: Disable testing transaction-safe exceptions on Darwin and AIX.
* testsuite/libitm.c++/libstdc++-safeexc.C: Not supported on darwin
or AIX.
diff --git a/libitm/testsuite/libitm.c++/libstdc++-safeexc.C b/libitm/testsuite/libitm.c++/libstdc++-safeexc.C
index 3e1655e..20e2e5e 100644
--- a/libitm/testsuite/libitm.c++/libstdc++-safeexc.C
+++ b/libitm/testsuite/libitm.c++/libstdc++-safeexc.C
@@ -2,7 +2,10 @@
// are indeed that. Thus, this also tests the transactional clones in
// libstdc++ and libsupc++.
-// { dg-do run }
+// Not supported on Darwin nor AIX because those lack the support for
+// weak references to undefined functions that we need in libstdc++ to make
+// exceptions transaction-safe.
+// { dg-do run { target { ! { *-*-darwin* powerpc-ibm-aix* } } } }
#include <iostream>
#include <exception>