This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Using bugzilla to track XFAILs
- From: "Zack Weinberg" <zack at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
- Cc: Ian Lance Taylor <ian at wasabisystems dot com>, "Giovanni Bajo" <giovannibajo at libero dot it>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, "Mark Mitchell" <mark at codesourcery dot com>, "Gabriel Dos Reis" <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2004 11:33:10 -0800
- Subject: Re: Using bugzilla to track XFAILs
- References: <200402131613.i1DGDfT13051@pc960.cambridge.arm.com>
Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com> writes:
> I like the idea also, but we need to make sure we do it carefully. Often
> a test is xfailed when it isn't really a problem with the compiler but
> with the run-time environment. Take, for example,
> g77.f-torture/execute/io0.f, which is xfailed on several embedded
> platforms because there is no support for stat() in these environments.
>
> Ideally such tests should be skipped when the compiler is not at fault.
Yes, or marked UNSUPPORTED. dg.exp doesn't appear to have a facility
for UNSUPPORTED, but it can definitely skip tests, and it oughtn't to
be hard to add UNSUPPORTED capability in gcc-dg.exp.
> Another possibility might be to use the KFAIL feature introduced into
> dejagnu for gdb. A kfail (known failure) could require a PR to be
> associated with it.
I don't like KFAIL. I think it is introducing a distinction without a
difference, and I don't want to have to upgrade dejagnu on a whole
pile of heterogeneous computers.
zw