This is the mail archive of the 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

>>>>> Mark Mitchell <> writes:

>>>>> "Jason" == Jason Merrill <> 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.

No, we gave a FAIL for a crash where an error was expected.  That was the
case I fixed; see the code your patch removes:

! 	# If we crashed on this line, all tests fail.
! 	if [regexp "(^|\n)\[^\n\]+:$line: Internal compiler error\[^\n\]*" $comp_output ] {
! 	    regsub -all "(^|\n)\[^\n\]+:$line:\[^\n\]*" $comp_output "" comp_output
!             set comp_output [string trimleft $comp_output]
! 	    set ok fail
! 	    set uhoh fail

If this isn't working for some testcase, that can be fixed.

 >  Also, even though your criticism is probably valid,
 > doesn't it already apply to the sig7/11 handling code?

Yes, but that code is never hit.


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