conformtest: Support xfail markers on individual assertions [committed]
Joseph Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com
Fri Jun 19 21:27:00 GMT 2015
On Fri, 19 Jun 2015, Roland McGrath wrote:
> I think it makes sense to have bugs for this sort of thing. They can be
> closed with WONTFIX or whatever, but the bug gives the history of the issue.
If the intent is not to change something, I don't see the advantage of
indirecting to a bug over simply putting the explanation in a comment.
(I only mentioned bug 18235 in a comment - the case not following the "Bug
N:" convention - because it so happened such a bug had been filed and
closed WONTFIX, not because it seems particularly analogous to the normal
"Bug N:" case which I think of as meaning "this xfail should be present if
and only if that bug is still open".) Anyway, I've added a reference to
this discussion to the conformtest todo list
<https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Development_Todo/Master#conformtest_improvements>.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com
More information about the Libc-alpha
mailing list