This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: conformtest: Support xfail markers on individual assertions [committed]
- From: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>
- Cc: <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 20:50:50 +0000
- Subject: Re: conformtest: Support xfail markers on individual assertions [committed]
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1506192006270 dot 1466 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20150619201745 dot EA76D2C3B31 at topped-with-meat dot com> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1506192021030 dot 1466 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20150619203931 dot 0E3F72C3B31 at topped-with-meat dot com>
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