This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Beyond GCC 3.0: Summing Up
- To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- Subject: Re: Beyond GCC 3.0: Summing Up
- From: Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs dot mu dot oz dot au>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 15:45:46 +1000
- Cc: dewar at gnat dot com, kenner at vlsi1 dot ultra dot nyu dot edu, mark at codesourcery dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <20010710031120.960A5F2B12@nile.gnat.com> <orzoadxvh6.fsf@guarana.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>
On 10-Jul-2001, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
> As an extreme example, how about patches that introduce new testcases,
> that happen to not work on certain platforms? Should they be
> immediately reverted, on the grounds that the failure was not (known
> to be) there before?
No, the test case should just be XFAILed.
> How about a patch that fixes a problem in some port, and comes with a
> testcase that happens to exercise the same bug in another port? Does
> the patch have to be reverted just because the bug-fixer didn't even
> know about that other target?
Likewise here: rather than reverting the patch, the test case should
just be marked as being one that is expected to fail.
--
Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au> | "I have always known that the pursuit
The University of Melbourne | of excellence is a lethal habit"
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.