RFC: Monitoring old PRs, new dg directives

Marek Polacek polacek@redhat.com
Wed Aug 5 12:59:27 GMT 2020

On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 09:04:53AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com> writes:
> > On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 09:40:35AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> >> I guess there's a possibility that some tests happen to pass already
> >> on some targets.  That's more likely with middle-end and backend bugs
> >> rather than frontend stuff though.  Perhaps for those it would make
> >> sense to have a convention in which the failing testcase is restricted
> >> (at the whole-test level) to the targets that the person committing the
> >> testcase has actually tried.  Maybe with a comment on the dg-ice etc.
> >> to remind people to reconsider the main target selector when un-XFAILing
> >> the test.
> >
> > Interesting point.  With my frontend hat on, I hadn't really thought of
> > this much, but the dg-ice directive allows you to specify the targets and
> > specific options when to expect an ICE.  So you could run a test everywhere
> > but only expect an ICE on aarch64.
> Yeah.  But the problem I was thinking of was: whoever adds the test
> will only test on a subset of targets.  If the test runs for all targets,
> the dg-ice condition has to be exact for all targets too.  Missing out
> one target will generate a new FAIL, while adding a target unnecessarily
> will generate an XPASS.  So I think the condition has to be applied at
> a whole-test level instead, unless the person committing the test is
> confident about which targets are and aren't affected.
> (The same goes for other directives, dg-ice is just an example.)

Ah, got it.  Thanks for the explanation.


More information about the Gcc-patches mailing list