This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH, i386, MPX, 3/X] MPX tests


On Nov 19, 2013, at 2:05 PM, Ilya Enkovich <enkovich.gnu@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Anything added that's XFAILed should have a comment explaining the reason
>> for the XFAILing (a reference to a bug in GCC Bugzilla is a good idea,
>> with that bug then mentioning the particular test that indicates whether
>> the bug is still present).
> 
> Tests fail not due to the bug but because these tests should fail.

> It would mean bound violation was detected.

You should have a way to have a bound violation turn into a PASS:.

For example, if you have fork or threads, you could fork or create a thread and notice in the other that the spawned routine failed (didn't complete normally) and then exit(0) it, else exit(1) it.  not pretty, but if you hide this behind a macro, should be easy to maintain (or switch, if someone finds a better way to do it).  If you have a probe primitive to ask the question, will this be a valid access, you could switch to using that primitive instead.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]