Several regressions and we branch soon.

[Yao Qi]

Andreas Arnez <arnez@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:

> Right, this was considered in the patch.  But only what I've actually
> seen fail in my testing is marked as KFAIL.  Since more FAILs are
> observed now, maybe we could mark them as KFAIL as well.  Or skip them
> altogether, like in the patch below.  WDYT?

I am inclined to skip them altogether, but I think we need skip more.
With your patch applied,  I still see them in gdb.sum

 KFAIL: gdb.base/gnu_vector.exp: call add_some_intvecs (PRMS: gdb/18537)
 KPASS: gdb.base/gnu_vector.exp: call add_many_charvecs (PRMS gdb/18537)
 KFAIL: gdb.base/gnu_vector.exp: call add_various_floatvecs (PRMS: gdb/18537)
 KFAIL: gdb.base/gnu_vector.exp: call add_structvecs (PRMS: gdb/18537)
 KFAIL: gdb.base/gnu_vector.exp: skip remaining vector ABI tests on this arch (PRMS: gdb/18537)

KPASS is confusing here.  I'd like to skip all of them on x86 and emit
UNSUPPORTED in gdb.sum, because we've already know that vector infcall
doesn't support on x86, UNSUPPORTED is better than KFAIL, IMO.

-- 
Yao (齐尧)