This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PATCH for Re: more evidence that failing to detect ICE's is a significant problem
- To: jason at cygnus dot com
- Subject: Re: PATCH for Re: more evidence that failing to detect ICE's is a significant problem
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at markmitchell dot com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 17:02:32 -0700
- CC: law at cygnus dot com, jbuck at synopsys dot com, egcs-patches at cygnus dot com
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
- Reply-to: mark at markmitchell dot com
>>>>> "Jason" == Jason Merrill <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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:
/* 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?
Mark Mitchell email@example.com
Mark Mitchell Consulting http://www.markmitchell.com