This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [2.20] [3/6] Support expected failures in .test-result files
- From: Brooks Moses <bmoses at google dot com>
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: libc-alpha <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 16:41:52 -0800
- Subject: Re: [2.20] [3/6] Support expected failures in .test-result files
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1401100208000 dot 9412 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1401100211530 dot 9412 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <52F95BE2 dot 3070004 at google dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1402102315100 dot 26591 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Joseph S. Myers
<joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2014, Brooks Moses wrote:
>> What do you think of putting the XFAIL information in a separate file that
>> could potentially be easily read by alternate test drivers, to facilitate
>> future portability? (And also this would ensure that it the information is
>> always in a canonical location.)
>
> I'd rather the information was alongside the definitions of what tests to
> run when, which is in the makefiles. See my remark about the policy
> question of marking tests as expected to fail for particular architectures
> in their sysdeps makefiles.
Fair enough. That argument makes sense to me, and I agree that if we
keep a policy that global xfails go next to the test definition and
port-specific ones go in the sysdeps makefile, they shouldn't get
lost. Global xfails should be quite rare in any case.
- Brooks