XFAILing gcc.c-torture/execute/mayalias-2.c -O3 -g (PR 28834)

[Richard Guenther]

On 3/15/07, Janis Johnson <janis187@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 04:58:51AM -0400, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Joe Buck wrote:
> > > If we allow XFAILing tests that ICE, it should be an extremely rare thing.
> > > I worry that once the precedent is set, the number of XFAIL ICEs will
> > > go up with time, making it more likely that users will experience
> > > compiler crashes.
> >
> > What's so bad about an ICE compared to e.g. wrong-code?
> > The latter is IMNSHO much much worse.
> > Is it just the technical matter of xfailing it or is there a
> > *logical* reason that I've missed in this discussion and elsewere?
>
> The reason for not supporting XFAIL for a ICE is that a test that was
> already XFAIL for failing to compile didn't report a new ICE.  It made
> sense at the time.

So we need a XICE instead?

Richard.