On 3/15/07, Janis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 04:58:51AM -0400, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Joe Buck wrote:
> > 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.
>
> What's so bad about an ICE compared to e.g. wrong-code?
> The latter is IMNSHO much much worse.
> Is it just the technical matter of xfailing it or is there a
> *logical* reason that I've missed in this discussion and elsewere?
The reason for not supporting XFAIL for a ICE is that a test that was
already XFAIL for failing to compile didn't report a new ICE. It made
sense at the time.
So we need a XICE instead?
Richard.
