From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from esa3.mentor.iphmx.com (esa3.mentor.iphmx.com [68.232.137.180]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 780A3399CC17; Fri, 16 Jul 2021 15:32:43 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 780A3399CC17 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=codesourcery.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mentor.com IronPort-SDR: 16DRzO+1tBMOe7+1I3WeNOs606Q44d+cJ8ycEvEDs0jA6Iu9mrKnl7xCVm0/HaQ5WSS5qq/uiT HqLlVDGmOwaMOa1airb+zoo/9Frh3iV2PS/FDs4j7xi/u58wMONIjK2oeeYQtMSJ5MN/BKMQRk nZ9pRNDEUGAJlaZVWL4rB3ZQuhreiMSPsyWTQhJ3QlOcAbMbFqnS+ZeQKePhZF5ov1gPTkwCUm F5LEwj+pqxoyjVs8/wSdaTLlaNkxCtPteRlACz6ytLxconJ0HLAirwlkyVjkTbAJpR64NeO3AZ a+DrBUEawJlRuEDJyG9++Tjt X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.84,245,1620720000"; d="scan'208";a="63607672" Received: from orw-gwy-02-in.mentorg.com ([192.94.38.167]) by esa3.mentor.iphmx.com with ESMTP; 16 Jul 2021 07:32:42 -0800 IronPort-SDR: Y3cCGTPld2P341If0nQSE9IyYTQh5SM8rDJWwsiS+BXfaPvakoa5wHkSvV3A9Zez1JWvDG2b/r hJBh5LpMOcoYjrjLa43VwK3b9nRJeZmqWh0M4EGCrUnGtIXREsG6T6VaKJ0AD988tGt+KFKI+B JjP8q/DnLrfb3EUab3JGQjX9MelD5tgl3M4QSnrJA2BEXIffE35DpHUmNbYUaT8c/Iz1UTuzoI j77iNz2KPTDajnhqwjArmWYc4oGYoF/vKMcG0Ss+sVH44VmhvHnaf6fxmsEWKQw6ewFfpOn/3N hu8= From: Thomas Schwinge To: Thomas Koenig , CC: Sandra Loosemore , , Subject: Pushing XFAILed test cases (was: [PATCH, Fortran] Bind(c): CFI_signed_char is not a Fortran character type) In-Reply-To: <10658f98-0a72-e80d-0cc6-7b4624eea1f1@netcologne.de> References: <13168f92-8863-cb63-9470-a6055d5da5f6@codesourcery.com> <10658f98-0a72-e80d-0cc6-7b4624eea1f1@netcologne.de> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.29.3+94~g74c3f1b (https://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/27.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2021 17:32:27 +0200 Message-ID: <87im1ab7g4.fsf@euler.schwinge.homeip.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Originating-IP: [137.202.0.90] X-ClientProxiedBy: SVR-IES-MBX-03.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.3) To svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.1) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gcc-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2021 15:32:45 -0000 [Also including for guidance.] Hi! (I'm not involved in or familiar with Sandra's Fortran TS29113 work, just commenting generally here.) On 2021-07-16T09:52:28+0200, Thomas Koenig via Gcc-patches wrote: > It is my understanding that it is not gcc policy to add xfailed test > cases for things that do not yet work. Rather, xfail is for tests that > later turn out not to work, especially on certain architectures. That's not current practice, as far as I can tell. I'm certainly "guilty" of pushing lots of XFAILed test cases (or, most often, individual XFAILed DejaGnu directives), and I see a good number of others GCC folks do that, too. Ideally with but casually also without corresponding GCC PRs filed. If without, then of course should have suitable commentary inside the test case file. Time span of addressing the XFAILs ranging between days and years. In my opinion, if a test case has been written and analyzed, why shouldn't you push it, even if (parts of) it don't quite work yet? (If someone -- at another time, possibly -- then implements the missing functionality/fixes the bugs, the XFAILs turn into XPASSes, thus serving to demonstrate the effect of code changes. Otherwise -- and I've run into that just yesterday... -- effort spent on such test cases simply gets lost "in the noise of the mailing list archives", until re-discovered, or -- in my case -- re-implemented and then re-discovered by chance. We nowadays even have a way to mark up ICEing test cases ('dg-ice'), which has been used to push test cases that ICE for '{ target *-*-* }'. Of course, we shall assume a certain level of quality in the XFAILed test cases: I'm certainly not suggesting we put any random junk into the testsuite, coarsely XFAILed. (I have not reviewed Sandra's test cases to that effect, but knowing here, I'd be surprised if that were the problem here.) Not trying to overrule you, just sharing my opinion -- now happy to hear others. :-) Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe Thomas ----------------- Siemens Electronic Design Automation GmbH; Anschrift: Arnulfstra=C3=9Fe 201= , 80634 M=C3=BCnchen; Gesellschaft mit beschr=C3=A4nkter Haftung; Gesch=C3= =A4ftsf=C3=BChrer: Thomas Heurung, Frank Th=C3=BCrauf; Sitz der Gesellschaf= t: M=C3=BCnchen; Registergericht M=C3=BCnchen, HRB 106955