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: XFAIL tests that aren't regressions

To: Franz dot Sirl-kernel at lauterbach dot com
Subject: Re: PATCH: XFAIL tests that aren't regressions
From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 09:24:04 -0700
Cc: dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
References: <01043017223401.21472@enzo.bigblue.local><20010430083237V.mitchell@codesourcery.com><01043017534002.21472@enzo.bigblue.local>

>>>>> "Franz" == Franz Sirl <Franz.Sirl-kernel@lauterbach.com> writes:

    Franz> The test belongs into the ieee subdir because it relies on
    Franz> correct IEEE math, it's just that ieee.exp shoudn't use
    Franz> -ffloat-store unconditionally on all platforms.

I guess I don't quite understand this.  Take it one level further,
please. :-)

    Franz> So I would say move the test on both mainline and branch,
    Franz> and put fixing ieee.exp on the mainline TODO list.

What benefit to we get out of moving the test on the branch?  Will we
test things better, or will users see fewer unexpected failures?

Thanks,

--
Mark Mitchell                   mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC               http://www.codesourcery.com

References:
- Re: PATCH: XFAIL tests that aren't regressions
  - From: Franz Sirl
- Re: PATCH: XFAIL tests that aren't regressions
  - From: Mark Mitchell
- Re: PATCH: XFAIL tests that aren't regressions
  - From: Franz Sirl

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