This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: C++ Parser testcase failure on AIX
- From: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>
- To: dje at watson dot ibm dot com, mark at codesourcery dot com
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 13:51:50 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: C++ Parser testcase failure on AIX
- References: <38250000.1041530038@warlock.codesourcery.com>
> From: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
>
> > Okay, it helps that it's not just me and AIX. Does Mark want PRs
> > or email? He hasn't said to me that he wants PRs.
>
> So far, I'm keeping up by email -- I think. If you think that I'm
> ignoring you, file a PR and make it high priority, and assign it to me.
> And then hassle me.
Mark - By using PRs I never meant to suggest that you were ignoring
anything. I had thought that was the preferred method for logging
complete information to track any error and reproduce it. Plus when I
include you in the CC PR status field you get an email anyway.
I've filed two more reports related to the new parser, (beyond David's
typeof report.) Again, no implication about your responsiveness meant.
I believe that covers all errors with the new parser arising on my
test platforms, though there are still a few extra XPASSes. But
that's a good problem to have. E.g.
XPASS: g++.bugs/900404_04.C , (test for errors, line 15)
XPASS: g++.jason/access8.C cannot convert to inh (test for errors, line 28)
XPASS: g++.other/decl5.C ::Q not a member of B (test for errors, line 34)
Is it appripriate to remove the XFAILs for these cases?
Thanks,
--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu