This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch] XFAIL anew?.C
On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 16:19:13 -0700, Dale Johannesen <dalej@apple.com> wrote:
> On Apr 5, 2004, at 3:09 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On Mon, 5 Apr 2004 23:54:59 +0100, Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> (But, is using abort() and exit(0) really part of our testsuite
>>>> standard? I thought using return 0/return 1 was perfectly acceptable.
>>>> The change is OK, anyhow; that's just a side issue.)
>>>
>>> From sourcebuild.texi:
>>>
>>> "
>>> Test cases should use @code{abort ()} to indicate failure and
>>> @code{exit (0)} for success; on some targets these may be redefined to
>>> indicate failure and success in other ways.
>>> "
>>
>> The C++ testsute has been using return 0/1 for quite a while; changing
>> testcases to use abort/exit is not necessary.
>
> In that case, should the doc be changed?
I think so. The only targets where this would be problematic are broken
simulators which don't support C++ anyway. The proper solution to this
situation, IMO, is to fix the simulators, not to inconvenience testcase
contributors.
Jason