This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PATCH for Re: more evidence that failing to detect ICE's is a significant problem
>>>>> Mark Mitchell <mark@markmitchell.com> writes:
>>>>> "Jason" == Jason Merrill <jason@cygnus.com> writes:
Jason> Oops, I forgot to respond to this before. I don't think
Jason> this patch is a good idea, as there's no way to set XFAIL
Jason> for the ICE. I think the old way of considering an ICE to
Jason> be a failure was fine. Sure, all crashes are bugs, but not
Jason> necessarily worse bugs than others.
> Unfortunately, with something like this:
> void f()
> {
> /* Some bad code */ // ERROR - should get error - XFAIL
> }
> a crash anywhere would result in a PASS.
No, we gave a FAIL for a crash where an error was expected. That was the
case I fixed; see the code your patch removes:
! # If we crashed on this line, all tests fail.
! if [regexp "(^|\n)\[^\n\]+:$line: Internal compiler error\[^\n\]*" $comp_output ] {
! regsub -all "(^|\n)\[^\n\]+:$line:\[^\n\]*" $comp_output "" comp_output
! set comp_output [string trimleft $comp_output]
! set ok fail
! set uhoh fail
If this isn't working for some testcase, that can be fixed.
> Also, even though your criticism is probably valid,
> doesn't it already apply to the sig7/11 handling code?
Yes, but that code is never hit.
Jason