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: C++ g++.dg/parse/parse3.C test

From: Matt Austern <austern at apple dot com>
To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
Cc: gcc mailing list <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 11:04:30 -0700
Subject: Re: C++ g++.dg/parse/parse3.C test
References: <9354CC22-27AE-11D9-8748-000A95BCF344@apple.com> <20041027165801.GA18379@redhat.com>

On Oct 27, 2004, at 9:58 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:

On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 05:24:33PM -0700, Matt Austern wrote:

 1. Accept the fact that a test case will start failing when it
previously succeeded, and decide that it's a good thing because it
increases the visibility of a known bug.


This is not acceptable.  Increasing the noise in the testsuite
helps no one.

 2. XFAIL parse3.C.
 3. Remove parse3.C altogether.


Either of these is fine, depending on whether or not you think
that the test case is malformed or not.


I believe it's a perfectly valid test case; the only problem is that
it's running into a known compiler bug, which happens to be
masked by a different known bug.

--Matt

Follow-Ups:
- Re: C++ g++.dg/parse/parse3.C test
  - From: Diego Novillo

References:
- C++ g++.dg/parse/parse3.C test
  - From: Matt Austern
- Re: C++ g++.dg/parse/parse3.C test
  - From: Richard Henderson

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