On Aug 7, 2020, at 6:16 AM, Nathan Sidwell <nat...@acm.org> wrote: > > On 8/6/20 8:01 PM, Mike Stump wrote: >> On Aug 6, 2020, at 7:01 AM, Nathan Sidwell <nat...@acm.org> wrote: >>> >>>> XFAIL: g++.dg/foo.C -std=c++17 (internal compiler error) >>>> PASS: g++.dg/foo.C -std=c++17 (test for excess errors) >>>> Which one of these would you not like to see? >>> >>> Neither of these is solving the issue. How do I find the ICES that are >>> unexpected, without tripping over the ICEs that are expected? >> Don't you already have this issue for current xfailed ICEs? ^FAIL.*internal >> compiler error I think finds them, doesn't it? > > Are there xfailed ICEs? I've not run into them?
I certainly have seen them in various forms and in various places over the years; though, you do raise the interesting point, it may only be theory if things work well on all the platforms of interest. So, yeah, adding new ICEs can make the search regex longer in practice.
