On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Diego Novillo <dnovi...@google.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 07:16, Richard Guenther > <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Well, you'd need to maintain a list of known XPASS/FAILs anyway. > > Yes, of course. That's the manifest of things you expect to be broken. > >> You can as well do it in the testcases themself (add XFAILs, remove >> XPASSes and open bugreports to not forget about this). Adding >> a separate filter or whatever just looks completely wrong to me. > > The main motivation is precisely not have to deal with dejagnu's xfail > mechanisms. They are too cumbersome (details upthread).
Well, I'd rather _fix_ dejagnu then. Any specific example you can't eventually xfail by dg-skipping the testcase? > Perhaps if there was a global marker that one could add, that would > solve my problem too. I think I'll start with a post-check filter in > contrib/ You seem to have a very specific problem ;) I suppose some patch autotester? Our patch autotester simply bootstraps twice and compares the result. Richard. > > > Diego. >
