23 GCC HEAD regressions, 1 new, with your patch on 2004-06-10T08:10:15Z.

[Diego Novillo]

On Thu, 2004-06-10 at 18:53, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > 
> > --BOUNDARY
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> > 
> > With your recent patch, GCC HEAD has some regression test failures, 
> > which used to pass.  There are 1 new failures, and 22
> > failures that existed before and after that patch; 0 failures
> > have been fixed.
> > 
> > The new failures are:
> > native gcc.sum gcc.c-torture/compile/930523-1.c
> 
> I filed this as PR 15920, it looks like the additional checking from Daniel Berlin
> catches this for some reason.
> 
If it's a PR, would you mind XFAILing the test as well?  One of the
things we agreed at the summit was to start being very aggressive with
XFAILs.

The idea is that for every failure there should exist a corresponding PR
and the failure should be XFAIL'd.

In fact, I do believe that XFAILing tests en-masse and creating PRs
would be almost pre-approved (not that I can pre-approve that, though).


Diego.