On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 03:47:57AM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > > It's not punishing the testcase; it's recognising that we have a bug > > tracking system to track regressions and having "expected unexpected > > FAILs" is helpful neither to users wishing to know if their compiler built > > as expected nor to developers glancing over test results to see if they > > seem OK.
On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 08:39:05AM -0800, Janis Johnson wrote: > I've come to agree with that point of view and I'll look into allowing > XFAIL for tests that ICE. Torture tests are handled differently, > though, and this particular test can be XFAILed with the example .x > file I sent earlier. 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. So, while Joseph does have a good argument, I hope that calling the test an XFAIL instead of fixing the crash will be a rare last resort.
