This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
to XFAIL or not to XFAIL
- To: binutils at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- Subject: to XFAIL or not to XFAIL
- From: cgd at sibyte dot com (Chris G. Demetriou)
- Date: 08 Oct 2000 22:24:02 -0700
Should XFAIL be used to indicate testcases which:
(a) are known to fail but actually indicate bugs, or
(b) are known to fail but do not actually indicate bugs.
(An example of the latter being differences in readelf output due to
different sections created for different targets. An example of the
former being gas/testsuite/gas/mips/mips16-f.?, as far as I can tell.)
I'd expect that in fact they're supposed to be used only for (b).
If that's the case, I think the the patch below is in order (apply in
gas/testsuite). It un-xfail's a test case for mips16 relocations,
which as far as i can tell should succeed but fails due to a bug in
gas.
cgd
===================================================================
2000-10-08 Chris Demetriou <cgd@sibyte.com>
* gas/mips/mips.exp: Don't setup the mips16-f case to XFAIL,
since it actually does demonstrate a bug.
Index: gas/mips/mips.exp
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gas/testsuite/gas/mips/mips.exp,v
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -c -r1.4 mips.exp
*** mips.exp 2000/05/11 01:55:11 1.4
--- mips.exp 2000/10/09 05:15:33
***************
*** 110,116 ****
run_dump_test "empic"
if { !$no_mips16 } {
run_dump_test "mips16-e"
- setup_xfail "mips*-*-*"
run_dump_test "mips16-f"
}
}
--- 110,115 ----