Janis Johnson 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. > > 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.
/me three The testsuite, especially on release branches, is not to highlight regressions, prod developers into fixing things, etc. It's to let developers and users who build from source figure out whether their builds are behaving as we expect them to behave. Zero FAILs may not be achievable on all targets, but if I had a magic XFAIL wand, that would put the right XFAIL goo into all tests before every release so that all users who built the toolchain correctly always got zero FAILs, I would do it. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713
