This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: Will the consistent failures in EGCS be fixed soon?


> 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?


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