EH bug in Makefile.in

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message < 199710260332.UAA08639@atrus.synopsys.com >you write:
  > FAIL: g++.benjamin/warn01.C (test for excess errors)
  > XPASS: g++.jason/destruct3.C - (test for bogus messages, line 38)
  > FAIL: g++.jason/template31.C (test for excess errors)
  > XPASS: g++.mike/dyncast1.C  Execution test
  > XPASS: g++.mike/dyncast2.C  Execution test
  > FAIL: g++.mike/eh35.C  Execution test
  > 
  > Pretty impressive!
Very cool.

  > Question though: do folks think MRS's exception tests
  > cover the problem areas well, or are there other failure modes (someone
  > mentioned that delete is not called if a contructor for an object
  > allocated by new throws an exception, are there others?)?
I don't they have that good of coverage -- they're some real basic
functionality tests + regression test for problems he ran into at
various times.

As such, I see them (and most of our testsuites) as being able to
tells us whether or not we've really botched something badly or
if we're regressing.

jeff