On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 12:44:56AM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Eric Christopher wrote: > > > Joseph S. Myers wrote: > > > On Tue, 12 Sep 2006, Eric Christopher wrote: > > > > > > > So, these are xfailed, but still produce quite a bit of noise on both > > > > x86_64-darwin and x86_64-linux since they fail to produce a working > > > > executable > > > > and then xfail. Should we move them to skip or link only and xfail them. > > > > With > > > > link only they do manage to be quiet in the logs and we'll still notice > > > > if > > > > they start linking correctly and can move them to run then. > > > > > > > > thoughts? pre-approved? :) > > > > > > Add a means to XFAIL the link of an execute test, if such a means doesn't > > > already exist in the testsuite infrastructure. > > > > As opposed to changing the test to a link, find a way to xfail at the link > > stage instead of at the run stage? > > Yes. Some marking so that the compile/link is expected to fail (and so > doesn't produce a WARNING) but if it succeeds (XPASS) then the execute > test is run.
I'll take a look. Janis
