Re: PATCH for Re: more evidence that failing to detect ICE's is a significant problem

[Jason Merrill <jason at cygnus dot com>]

>>>>> Mark Mitchell <mark@markmitchell.com> writes:

 > The issue was that we were not spotting a regression.

FWIW, I don't think this was a regression; the testcase always caused an
ICE, and I marked it XFAIL so it wouldn't be seen as a regression.

 > This case should have been a FAIL, not an XFAIL, IMO.  Perhaps that's
 > where we differ?

Yep.

 > Your code spotted the internal error, and called it a `FAIL'.  But, then
 > we saw the XFAIL, and called this an XFAIL.  That meant that even though
 > we had what Joe Buck and I pereceived as a regression (a crash, versus a
 > missed error), the testsuite didn't notify us.

I see a crash and a missed error as two different failure modes for an
error test, but I don't see the need to test for them separately.

 > Then that code should go.  One of the things that sometimes makes it
 > difficult to work on GCC (and other programs, for that matter) is the
 > presence of old code whose utility is unclear to the novice, like
 > myself.

Agreed; bitrot occurs in all systems.  Feel free to tear it out.

Jason