This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: PATCH: XFAIL tests that aren't regressions
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Subject: Re: PATCH: XFAIL tests that aren't regressions
- From: Franz Sirl <Franz dot Sirl-kernel at lauterbach dot com>
- Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 01:29:15 +0200
- Cc: dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca,gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <01043017534002.21472@enzo.bigblue.local> <01050200532902.11376@enzo.bigblue.local> <20010501161345A.mitchell@codesourcery.com>
On Wednesday 02 May 2001 01:13, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> >>>>> "Franz" == Franz Sirl <Franz.Sirl-kernel@lauterbach.com> 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
> >> failures?
>
> 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. :-)
Heh.
> 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
> sooner? :-)
Nope, but it is an "obvious fix" and a lot easier than to mess with all the
XPASS now. It will take a while until all the port maintainers will update
the .x file and will just produce a lot of avoidable noise til then.
> 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.
I still vote for both :-) OK? ;-)
Franz.