This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: XFAILing gcc.c-torture/execute/mayalias-2.c -O3 -g (PR 28834)
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 03:47:57AM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>
> > Anyways the best way to fix this is just to fix the bug. Someone
>
> We should have 0 unexpected FAILs in 4.2.0 on common platforms (in
> particular the primary release criteria ones for the testsuites of the
> languages in the release criteria). How this is achieved is secondary,
> but if the bug isn't fixed for 4.2.0 the test should be XFAILed - and we
> know from experience that many regressions aren't fixed for releases,
> especially where they were present in many previous releases.
>
> > exposed the regression back in 4.0 time frame, I reported the bug
> > before getting approval for the patch. They were not willing to fix
> > it so why punish the testcase which is obviously is a regression.
>
> It's not punishing the testcase; it's recognising that we have a bug
> tracking system to track regressions and having "expected unexpected
> FAILs" is helpful neither to users wishing to know if their compiler built
> as expected nor to developers glancing over test results to see if they
> seem OK.
I've come to agree with that point of view and I'll look into allowing
XFAIL for tests that ICE. Torture tests are handled differently,
though, and this particular test can be XFAILed with the example .x
file I sent earlier.
Janis