This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc 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]

Re: [2.20] [3/6] Support expected failures in .test-result files


On 02/10/2014 07:41 PM, Brooks Moses wrote:
> 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.

IMO we're going to have to extend this to be more flexible for
XFAILS, and I think that data will have to be kept outside of
glibc.

The XFAILS in glibc depend upon the tools used to build glibc
and the present runtime which can include nss, selinux, libgcc
and all the other libraries involved.

However, this is certainly a great start.

Cheers,
Carlos.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]