>I'm saying we might want to verify that these do in fact fail. UNSUPPORTED >causes the test to not be run, XFAIL tests to ensure failure, which is >possibly what we want here. >OTOH, our test configuration isn't set up to do > conditional _compile time_ failures, so maybe we should just settle for > UNSUPPORTED.
Your right. That's probably a good idea. <atomic> is unique in that it actually explicitly errors when it is included but won't work. `.fail.cpp` tests are expected to fail at compile time. I think we should do is leave these tests as unsupported and add a `cxx03.fail.cpp` test that ensures including <atomic> results in a compiler failures. Here's my gripe. I like the separation between 1. XFAIL - tests that should be fixed. 2. UNSUPPORTED - tests I don't care about at all. It makes it a lot easier to watch just the tests I care about. Adding one XFAIL test seems a touch cleaner, and will guarantee the same thing. http://reviews.llvm.org/D5955 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
