On Nov 19, 2013, at 2:52 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> 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
On Nov 19, 2013, at 2:05 PM, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
>> 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 p
On Tue, 19 Nov 2013, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> 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,
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013, Ilya Enkovich wrote:
> 2013/11/20 Joseph S. Myers :
> > 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
2013/11/20 Joseph S. Myers :
> 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 tes
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.
Anything added that's XFAI
