This is the mail archive of the binutils@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the binutils project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: to XFAIL or not to XFAIL

To: dje at transmeta dot com
Subject: Re: to XFAIL or not to XFAIL
From: DJ Delorie <dj at delorie dot com>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 16:05:12 -0400
CC: ian at zembu dot com, binutils at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
References: <5t7l7ivb7x.fsf@highland.sibyte.com><20001009160457.2837.qmail@daffy.airs.com><200010091943.PAA20880@envy.delorie.com><20001009194902.3902.qmail@daffy.airs.com><200010091951.PAA20974@envy.delorie.com> <14818.9267.721232.947066@casey.transmeta.com>


> For the "impossible to fix on this target" case, how about either
> a) not run the test on the particular target, or
> b) mark the test as UNSUPPORTED (which already exists), not XFAIL.
> 
> To me, that is better than adding a new "KFAIL".

I like (b) if we can ensure that XFAIL and UNSUPPORTED are used
consistently.

References:
- to XFAIL or not to XFAIL
  - From: Chris G. Demetriou
- Re: to XFAIL or not to XFAIL
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: to XFAIL or not to XFAIL
  - From: DJ Delorie
- Re: to XFAIL or not to XFAIL
  - From: Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: to XFAIL or not to XFAIL
  - From: DJ Delorie
- Re: to XFAIL or not to XFAIL
  - From: Doug Evans

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]