This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: Regressions on mainline\

From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
Cc: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, Jan Hubicka <jh at suse dot cz>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 17:10:33 -0700
Subject: Re: Regressions on mainline\
Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
References: <200406212232.i5LMWQW20317@tin.geop.uc.edu> <40D764CE.2060606@codesourcery.com> <20040621235812.GA1802@redhat.com>

Richard Henderson wrote:

On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 03:44:30PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:

OK. Would you please make sure that the PR is marked for 3.5.0 and XFAIL the test?
The problem is that it doesn't fail everywhere.  Not on i686-linux
for instance.  So: do you prefer FAIL on some targets, or XPASS on
the opposite set?

The latter. Nobody is likely to worry that they caused a problem if they see an XPASS; at worst, they'll investigate to see if they really solved the problem. With a FAIL, people have to do extra work to confirm that they didn't cause the problem before checking in, for example.

--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
(916) 791-8304
mark@codesourcery.com

References:
- Re: Regressions on mainline\
  - From: Andrew Pinski
- Re: Regressions on mainline\
  - From: Mark Mitchell
- Re: Regressions on mainline\
  - From: Richard Henderson

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