Re: Analysis of Mauve failures - Part 2

[Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>]

>>>>> "Mark" == Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org> writes:

Mark> I would really like to go back to a state were we don't have any
Mark> unexpected failures for mauve (and Gnats reports for everything
Mark> that we expect to fail).

That sounds good.  It's easier to use the test suite when you know
that any FAIL is a regression.

Mark> Would it it be OK for me to mark the remaining java.text mauve
Mark> failures as xfail and make bug reports for them? Or do you think
Mark> you will analyze/fix them before 3.1?

I doubt there's time to fix many of the problems, so xfailing is fine
by me.

Mark> FAIL: gnu.testlet.java.text.AttributedString.Test: Attribute key count
Mark> (number 1)

This isn't really a regression; we never had AttributedString before.
(Maybe it is a regression for Classpath though)

Mark> There are also results for powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu, but they don't
Mark> look that good (110 unexpected failures).
Mark> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2002-04/msg00275.html

Why is this platform so much worse?  I'm surprised by that.

Tom