This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Will the consistent failures in EGCS be fixed soon?
- To: law at cygnus dot com, richard dot earnshaw at arm dot com
- Subject: Re: Will the consistent failures in EGCS be fixed soon?
- From: mrs at wrs dot com (Mike Stump)
- Date: Mon, 29 Jun 1998 14:35:42 -0700
- Cc: egcs at cygnus dot com, rearnsha at sun52 dot arm dot com
> Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 12:53:45 +0100
> From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com>
> > The loop* things aren't likely to be addressed anytime soon.
> So shouldn't these be marked as XFAILs? Then I won't waste time looking
> into the failure in case it is a port problem.
Yes, they should be. As Jeff pointed out, they don't have the
infrastructure to mark them precisely. I think the should be marked
as precisely as possible. Or put another way, we should xfail the
entire series of sets and have a few extra XPASSes that we can't get
rid of, then a few unexpected fails that we can't get ride of.
The reason is, then a random person can look at the results, and just
know... Jeff, can we do this?