RFC: Monitoring old PRs, new dg directives
Wed Aug 5 12:59:27 GMT 2020
On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 09:04:53AM +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Marek Polacek <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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