Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> writes: > On Oct 15, 2015, at 12:47 PM, Richard Sandiford > <richard.sandif...@arm.com> wrote: >> I can see that argument if people are only taking work items from >> the PR database. But it's possible (likely even) that people will >> independently find a problem like this and just fix it, if the missed >> optimisation happens to be important to them. I don't think they >> should then have to trawl the PR database to see which PRs their patch >> fixes. > > There is no requirement that they do.
But if they don't the original test stays #if 0d out. I don't see why that's better than having an XFAIL become an XPASS, so that it's obvious that the XFAIL can be removed and we get the test back quicker.
