This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [C++] g++.other/enum5.C
- To: Ben Elliston <bje at redhat dot com>
- Subject: Re: [C++] g++.other/enum5.C
- From: Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya dot demon dot co dot uk>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 00:08:34 +0100
- Cc: Nathan Sidwell <nathan at codesourcery dot com>, gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
Ben Elliston wrote:-
> Nathan> should the test be xfailed, or ...?
> No, the test should not be xfailed. It is a genuine bug (see PR
> c++/80) and this test should serve to remind us of that fact.
But the same could be said for most existing xfails.
I don't think having the testsuite be noisy for "don't forget this
bug" reasons is a good idea, because it leads to the situation we had
last year, where patches that introduced new failures were not noticed
because the failures were swallowed up in the noise.
The current state of affairs is as good as it's been since I started
on GCC - almost nothing is an unexpected failure for me on x86 Linux.
Please let's try to keep it this way.
IMO we should xfail enum5.C. After all, (almost) every xfail is a bug
we should be trying to fix eventually; I don't think anyone is in any
danger of forgetting that.