On Wed, 20 Nov 2013, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > 2013/11/20 Joseph S. Myers <jos...@codesourcery.com>: > > On Wed, 20 Nov 2013, Ilya Enkovich wrote: > > > >> Here is a patch to add MPX tests. > > > > I don't think these should be under gcc.target/i386; gcc.dg/mpx would be > > better, so if someone adds a corresponding feature for another target, > > they don't need to move all the tests around. > > All tests use target specific option -mmpx. Shouldn't it go into > target tests then?
No, they should use { dg-add-options mpx } (well, both the directory name and the dg-add-options argument should use whatever generic name for this functionality we ended up with, rather than the name for the particular instance of it on x86, so say gcc.dg/chkp and dg-add-options chkp). The add_options_for_chkp function should then check the target and add the appropriate options depending on the target. > > Anything added that's XFAILed should have a comment explaining the reason > > for the XFAILing (a reference to a bug in GCC Bugzilla is a good idea, > > with that bug then mentioning the particular test that indicates whether > > the bug is still present). > > Tests fail not due to the bug but because these tests should fail. It > would mean bound violation was detected. If a bound violation should be detected, the test should PASS when it's detected and FAIL when it's not, rather than XFAILing and XPASSing. Hopefully dg-shouldfail will do the right thing (causing an error exit status from the test to mean PASS and a success status to mean FAIL). -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com