Suggestion for a new GNATS policy

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

"Giovanni Bajo" <giovannibajo@libero.it> writes:

| Joseph S. Myers <jsm28@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
| 
| > I'll reiterate that if we put these testcases in the testsuite, XFAILed
| > and with cross-references from testcase to bug number and from bug to
| > testcase, they would be automatically tested by many people on many
| > platforms and an accidental fix would be noticed immediately as an XPASS
| > when the patch accidentally fixing the bug is tested.  In that case the
| > keyword "monitored" could be used to mean "there is an XFAILed testcase in
| > the testsuite for this bug, and it isn't specific to a rarely tested
| > platform".
| 
| My only problem with this is that we would end up cluttering the testsuite
| with testcases which are not really bugs or are not completely correct, due
| to human mistakes / misinterpretations. Adding the testcase to the testsuite
| only when the bug is really fixed makes it sure that it's been "approved" as
| a real bug.
| In other words, XFAIL's meaning could be silently overloaded with "this is
| failing, but after all we're not 100% sure that this is a real bug".
| Of course, this applies to C/C++ standard interpretation. An ICE is of
| course always a bug.

Agreed on both counts.

I think we would even end up with more duplicates than necessary.

-- Gaby