From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22444 invoked by alias); 22 Dec 2002 21:48:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 22437 invoked from network); 22 Dec 2002 21:48:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO main.gmane.org) (80.91.224.249) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 22 Dec 2002 21:48:09 -0000 Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18QDwR-0008Kh-00 for ; Sun, 22 Dec 2002 22:47:23 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Received: from news by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18QDwQ-0008KQ-00 for ; Sun, 22 Dec 2002 22:47:22 +0100 Path: not-for-mail From: Ben Elliston Subject: Re: A testcase library Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 22:44:00 -0000 Organization: Red Hat Asia-Pacific Pty Ltd Message-ID: References: <20021220125202.B1310@sunsite.ms.mff.cuni.cz> <200212201313.OAA72149@numa6.igpm.rwth-aachen.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Honest Recruiter) Cache-Post-Path: webdevap.brisbane.redhat.com!unknown@scooby.brisbane.redhat.com X-Cache: nntpcache 3.0.1 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg01328.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Volker" == Volker Reichelt writes: >> Unless they are already in gcc testsuite, shouldn't they all be checked >> in after converting them to dg (or c-torture) format, ideally on all of 3.2/3.3 >> branches and trunk? Volker> This is not current policy. Christian has asked a similar question Volker> before, and got the following mail snippet from Craig: >> No, we only commit test cases when the bug's fixed. The rationale >> being you don't want to add a new failing test case -- that'd >> confuse people. Marking it XFAIL isn't really the right solution, >> as then when you fix the bug, you don't know whether fixing the >> XFAIL was accidental, and end up adding a new test case >> anyway. Also, in fixing the bug, you (well I at least), can >> construct a better test case having undersytood the failure mode. How about committing the test cases and marking them as known failures using DejaGnu's spiffy new KFAIL result? Ben