On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 04:58:51AM -0400, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Joe Buck wrote: > > If we allow XFAILing tests that ICE, it should be an extremely rare thing. > > I worry that once the precedent is set, the number of XFAIL ICEs will > > go up with time, making it more likely that users will experience > > compiler crashes. > > What's so bad about an ICE compared to e.g. wrong-code? > The latter is IMNSHO much much worse. > Is it just the technical matter of xfailing it or is there a > *logical* reason that I've missed in this discussion and elsewere?
The reason for not supporting XFAIL for a ICE is that a test that was already XFAIL for failing to compile didn't report a new ICE. It made sense at the time. Janis
