ret_pointer_1.f90 XPASSes everywhere; propose to remove xfail line.
Toon Moene
toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl
Sat Nov 13 15:16:00 GMT 2004
Paul Brook wrote:
> On Saturday 13 November 2004 14:27, Toon Moene wrote:
>>But wouldn't removing the xfail line at least concentrate our efforts on
>>those few cases where it indeed, still, errors ?
> I thought gcc policy was that the testsuite should have zero unexpected FAILs.
> Ie. spurious XPASSes are preferable to FAILs for known-broken tests.
Well, yes, but that's unobtainable. The testsuite will always show more
failures on (64-bit) big-endian systems, because 32-bit little-endian
targets will hide 'm.
> You were also proposing removing the comments mentioning the related PR, which
> has definitely not been fixed.
Ah, OK, I didn't know that - that might be a reason to keep them,
although removing the xfail would still help in highlighting the
problematic (target | options) couple.
> It's not a regression (that particular code never worked), so IMHO it can wait
> in line with any other wrong-code bugs we have :(
I agree - I've no idea where this goes wrong ...
--
Toon Moene - e-mail: toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl - phone: +31 346 214290
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
Maintainer, GNU Fortran 77: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/g77_news.html
A maintainer of GNU Fortran 95: http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran/
More information about the Gcc-patches
mailing list