This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: In C, enum types may be unsigned, but enum constants may not
- To: law at cygnus dot com
- Subject: Re: In C, enum types may be unsigned, but enum constants may not
- From: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- Date: 24 Jul 2000 09:32:11 -0700
- Cc: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <2356.964410998@upchuck>
>>>>> Jeffrey A Law <law@cygnus.com> writes:
> In message <orittww5vc.fsf@guarana.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>you write:
>> On Jul 23, 2000, Jeffrey A Law <law@cygnus.com> wrote:
>>
>> > OK. then go ahead and check it in as an xfailed test if it's still
>> > failing.
>>
>> It is failing, but it didn't fail on GCC 2.95.2. I thought people had
>> agreed that regressions from stable releases should not be marked as
>> xfails.
> I thought it was if the test is failing, mark it as xfail. I'd
> prefer your suggestion, but others preferred marking all failures as
> xfails regardless of the tests pass/fail status in a previous release.
I agree with you and Alexandre; I think that dealing with regressions
quickly is more important than being able to expect 0 failures. I suppose
we should have a vote or something. But perhaps Mark should get to decide.
Jason