This is the mail archive of the
java-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the Java project.
Re: java/decl.c patch for clear_binding_level
- To: "Zack Weinberg" <zackw at stanford dot edu>
- Subject: Re: java/decl.c patch for clear_binding_level
- From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Date: 17 Mar 2001 18:09:22 -0700
- Cc: Per Bothner <per at bothner dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, java-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <m2r8zww1mv.fsf@kelso.bothner.com> <20010317140030.A24669@stanford.edu>
- Reply-To: tromey at redhat dot com
>>>>> "Zack" == Zack Weinberg <zackw@stanford.edu> writes:
Zack> # of unexpected failures 96
This is still way too high. The "real" number is around 2. It
"should" be 0 -- I went through the test suite a while back and set
things up so that the number of unexpected failures is 0. This is
supposed make it easy to see when we introduce regressions. The fact
that it is nonzero at all means that someone has not been paying
attention to the test suite (I'm not casting blame -- it very well
could be me).
Zack> (it uses XFAIL for execution tests when the program failed to
Zack> compile - shouldn't that be UNTESTED?)
It doesn't matter that much to me.
Zack> PASS: Thread_Join -O compilation from source
Zack> libgcj failure: only thread already running
This means you failed to configure with `--enable-threads=posix'.
Zack> FAIL: Thread_Join -O execution from source compiled test
Zack> XFAIL: Thread_Join -O execution from source compiled test
Zack> (why does that get both a FAIL and an XFAIL?)
No clue.
Zack> and a very few 'compilation from bytecode' failures with no
Zack> error message attached,
I've seen this in the logs but I have not investigated it.
Tom