This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: A testcase library


>>>>> "Mike" == Mike Stump <mstump@apple.com> writes:

  >> How about committing the test cases and marking them as known
  >> failures using DejaGnu's spiffy new KFAIL result?

  Mike> I think people have a hard enough time with expected and
  Mike> unexpected, now we have to add known.  I think it is a bad
  Mike> idea.  Do we also have unexpected known failure, and expected
  Mike> unknown pass?

I think that KFAIL clarifies the situation (although I, too, have my
reservations about having too many test states).  It seems few people
properly understood the purpose of XFAIL, but most instances of XFAIL
are used to express known failures (take the G++ testsuite for
example).  The number of times XFAIL should be used should be
comparatively few.

FWIW, this approach has been adopted by The GDB Community.

Ben


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