This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: PATCH for Re: more evidence that failing to detect ICE's is a significant problem


>>>>> "Jason" == Jason Merrill <jason@cygnus.com> writes:

    Jason> Oops, I forgot to respond to this before.  I don't think
    Jason> this patch is a good idea, as there's no way to set XFAIL
    Jason> for the ICE.  I think the old way of considering an ICE to
    Jason> be a failure was fine.  Sure, all crashes are bugs, but not
    Jason> necessarily worse bugs than others.

Unfortunately, with something like this:

  void f()
  {
    /* Some bad code */ // ERROR - should get error - XFAIL
  }

a crash anywhere would result in a PASS.  That's not right; the test
was testing for the presence of the error, but the compiler shouldn't
be crashing.  Also, even though your criticism is probably valid,
doesn't it already apply to the sig7/11 handling code?

    Jason> Jason

-- 
Mark Mitchell 			mark@markmitchell.com
Mark Mitchell Consulting	http://www.markmitchell.com


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]