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] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
Not really no. If it is a genuine bug it ought to be fixed. If it cannot be fixed, or you do not have the time to fix it, then the reason for the failure at least ought to be documented in the comment. If you do not know why it is failing and you do not try to track it down then you may well missing an opportunity to uncover a problem which is not just specific to the arm-epoc-pe toolchain but possibly all arm toolchains and maybe even every toolchain.
I did try to track it down, but got nowhere. (I'm still not very good
at tracing binutils' internal logic.) Since I posted that patch, I've
determined that it is a general PECOFF problem, but I know no more
than that.
Alan Modra already approved the (general PECOFF) xfail. I'd prefer
not to take it back out again.
Over on the gcc side, we've found that having a baseline state of no unexpected failures is a very desirable thing - it means you can have confidence that any FAILs that show up in testing are your fault.
Cheers Nick
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |