Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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.
On the gcc 4.2 release branch can we just turn the ICE into a sorry? Then we don't have to worry about XFAILing an ICE. Ian
