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: geoffk at cygnus dot com
Subject: Re: to XFAIL or not to XFAIL
From: DJ Delorie <dj at delorie dot com>
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 16:25:43 -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> <200010092018.NAA15416@geoffk.org>


> We have UNSUPPORTED and UNTESTED for `impossible to fix on this
> target' and `impossible to test on this target' respectively.

The dejagnu documentation disagrees.  It lists UNSUPPORTED as
impossible (or meaningless) to test on this target.  UNTESTED is given
by a placeholder for a missing or incomplete test.

However, the docs agree that XFAIL means "bug, but expected", and
indicate that these would signal XPASS's when the bug is finally
fixed.

Summary: http://www.delorie.com/gnu/docs/dejagnu/dejagnu_9.html

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: Geoff Keating

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