This is the mail archive of the
gcc-regression@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: 23 GCC HEAD regressions, 1 new, with your patch on 2004-06-10T08:10:15Z.
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm at polyomino dot org dot uk>
- Cc: Diego Novillo <dnovillo at redhat dot com>, Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>, gcc-regression at gcc dot gnu dot org, dannysmith at users dot sourceforge dot net, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>,Geoff Keating <geoffk at apple dot com>, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at suse dot de>,Roger Sayle <roger at eyesopen dot com>, Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>, Steven Bosscher <stevenb at suse dot de>,Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 07:39:51 -0700
- Subject: Re: 23 GCC HEAD regressions, 1 new, with your patch on 2004-06-10T08:10:15Z.
- Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
- References: <200406102253.i5AMr2D02408@tin.geop.uc.edu> <1086908408.22854.259.camel@localhost.localdomain> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0406111215090.5550@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Diego Novillo wrote:
The idea is that for every failure there should exist a corresponding PR
and the failure should be XFAIL'd.
What about the other way round, should PRs (that haven't been fixed and
don't reflect testsuite failures) now have XFAILed testcases added to the
testsuite?
No.
That can result in duplicate tests in the testsuite, and makes us run
more tests without getting us more quality. It's great if testcases go
into the PRs, though.
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
(916) 791-8304
mark@codesourcery.com