On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:42 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:34:17AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote: >> On Mar 29, 2016, at 7:45 AM, David Edelsohn <dje....@gmail.com> wrote: >> > We have no plans to make code generation a slave to the testsuite. >> > The testsuite is a tool, successful results from the testsuite is not >> > a goal unto itself. >> > >> > This patch is okay. >> >> We look forward to the day when someone can find the time and energy and >> desire to make subsets of this work better and reenable those as they >> bring them back online. I view it as I do for turning off C++ testing on >> a PIC target, if no one wants to make it work nicely, then it is better to >> just turn it off. Anyone with the desire to make these tests work nicely >> will step forward and donate as they are able to. If someone would like >> that work done, you can edit up a TODO or projects file to describe the >> work you’d like done, and try and find someone that would like to do the >> work, or, just do the work yourself. If someone has the free time, and >> wants to tackle this project, merely step forward and let others know. >> This is how we make progress. > > The problem with the disabling is not in those tests that don't pass right > now on whatever target you are testing on, but with any regressions in tests > that pass right now but will not pass in half a year or year because of GCC > changes; if the tests are disabled, nobody will notice that, one can't look > at gcc-regressions or elsewhere to find out quickly where it regressed, etc. > > Jakub
One issue with gcc.dg/guality/guality.exp is when there is an ICE regression during guality init, all sudden there is no failure in guality tests: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68545 Next time, when ICE is fixed, a bunch of guality failures show up. -- H.J.