Re: ret_pointer_1.f90 XPASSes everywhere; propose to remove xfailline.

[Toon Moene <toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl>]

Paul Brook wrote:

> On Saturday 13 November 2004 14:27, Toon Moene wrote:

> > But wouldn't removing the xfail line at least concentrate our efforts on
> > those few cases where it indeed, still, errors ?

> I thought gcc policy was that the testsuite should have zero unexpected FAILs. 
> Ie. spurious XPASSes are preferable to FAILs for known-broken tests. 

Well, yes, but that's unobtainable.  The testsuite will always show more 
failures on (64-bit) big-endian systems, because 32-bit little-endian 
targets will hide 'm.

> You were also proposing removing the comments mentioning the related PR, which 
> has definitely not been fixed.

Ah, OK, I didn't know that - that might be a reason to keep them, 
although removing the xfail would still help in highlighting the 
problematic (target | options) couple.

> It's not a regression (that particular code never worked), so IMHO it can wait 
> in line with any other wrong-code bugs we have :(

I agree - I've no idea where this goes wrong ...

--
Toon Moene - e-mail: toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl - phone: +31 346 214290
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG  Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
Maintainer, GNU Fortran 77: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/g77_news.html
A maintainer of GNU Fortran 95: http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran/