This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: Split out some tests from builtins-20.c


On Oct 15, 2015, at 1:38 PM, Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com> wrote:
> Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net> writes:
>> On Oct 15, 2015, at 12:47 PM, Richard Sandiford
>> <richard.sandiford@arm.com> wrote:
>>> I can see that argument if people are only taking work items from
>>> the PR database.  But it's possible (likely even) that people will
>>> independently find a problem like this and just fix it, if the missed
>>> optimisation happens to be important to them.  I don't think they
>>> should then have to trawl the PR database to see which PRs their patch
>>> fixes.
>> 
>> There is no requirement that they do.
> 
> But if they don't the original test stays #if 0d out.

Only until someone retests the PR.

> I don't see why that's better than having an XFAIL become an XPASS, so that it's
> obvious that the XFAIL can be removed and we get the test back quicker.

I have a slight preference to not split the test cases in this case.  As I said, it isn’t a big deal, and if you feel it is better to split the test case, then your patch is ok.  I think it is trivial as I don’t know of a reason why someone should reject it.

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