From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-65215-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 28647 invoked by alias); 24 Dec 2002 01:37:17 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 28639 invoked from network); 24 Dec 2002 01:37:16 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu) (128.122.140.213)
  by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 24 Dec 2002 01:37:16 -0000
Received: by vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (4.1/1.34)
	id AA22944; Mon, 23 Dec 02 20:39:06 EST
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 18:08:00 -0000
From: kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner)
Message-Id: <10212240139.AA22944@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu>
To: mstump@apple.com
Subject: Re: A testcase library
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg01389.txt.bz2

    :-( I think people have a hard enough time with expected and
    unexpected, now we have to add known.  I think it is a bad idea.  Do
    we also have unexpected known failure, and expected unknown pass?

I agree.

Indeed can somebody explain what the diffence is between an "expected"
failure and a "known" failure?  Intuitively, they sound the same to me.