Roman Kennke wrote:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/classpath/2004-12/threads.html#00137
we talked about putting together somehow a list of Mauve tests that
all Classpath-based VMs should expect to pass, along with another
(complementary) list of those tests a Classpath-based VM should
expect to fail.
Sorry if I am completely naive here, but why should there be tests, that
a Classpath-based VM should be expected to fail?? Isn't the whole point
to (ideally) pass all tests? If there would be such a test, I would
rather rewrite the harness.check(cond) into harness.check(!cond) so that
the (expected) failure passes...
Ideally there should be no expected failures. In reality there always
are, simply because some feature is unimplemented or some bug has not
been tracked down yet. Obviously, any expected failures are good
starting points for anyone looking to improve Classpath... another
benefit of having (or being able to easily generate) such a list.
You wouldn't want to change the test, because the test is written
to the spec, not Classpath's (or any VM)'s particualr implementation.
I.e., Mauve itself is independent of Classpath or any particular VM.
It is supposed to represent what "run anywhere" actually looks like.
-Archie
__________________________________________________________________________
Archie Cobbs * CTO, Awarix * http://www.awarix.com
_______________________________________________
Classpath mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/classpath
