This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PATCH: XFAIL tests that aren't regressions
- To: Franz dot Sirl-kernel at lauterbach dot com
- Subject: Re: PATCH: XFAIL tests that aren't regressions
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 16:13:45 -0700
- Cc: dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
- References: <email@example.com><20010430092404M.firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com>
>>>>> "Franz" == Franz Sirl <Franz.Sirlfirstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> What benefit to we get out of moving the test on the branch?
>> Will we test things better, or will users see fewer unexpected
Franz> Well, the test passes fine on PPC and other platforms, and
Franz> I checked it passes on x86 when in the ieee dir. The only
Franz> thing I don't know for sure is if the bug still would
Franz> trigger with -ffloat-store on PPC, but as far as I remember
Franz> the bug, it was about handling UNKNOWN comparison codes and
Franz> that should be independent of -ffloat-sttore.
You didn't answer the question. :-)
What benefit to we get from moving the test *on the branch*? Will the
compiler become more reliable? Will I get to announce the release any
To me, it doesn't seem likely from what you say, although I think your
arguments about -ffloat-store and such make sense for the mainline.
So, I think your plan is good for the mainline, and we should do
nothing for the branch.
Mark Mitchell email@example.com
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com