[PATCH] Get all localization tests passing on linux!

Jonathan Roelofs jonathan at codesourcery.com
Sun Aug 17 20:45:38 PDT 2014

On 8/17/14, 9:43 PM, Jonathan Roelofs wrote:
> On 8/14/14, 9:43 PM, Dan Albert wrote:
>> I think I may have misled you when I said we should #ifdef the differences
>> between glibc and Mac. If there are legitimate differences, we should #ifdef
>> them. If glibc is wrong (it looks like it often is), we should just XFAIL the
>> test and file a bug against glibc (or does that data come from an OS package?).
> I'm with Dan on this... It seems like these 'fixes' are just lowering the
> expectations of tests when testing against a GLIBC system. It's perfectly
> appropriate to XFAIL them and let them fail if that is the case.
> If you're concerned about test coverage being lower because though there are
> lots of assertions in a single test file, it only takes one failure to
> effectively hide the results of the others, then I think it makes more sense to
> find a way to split the test. That way the part that is XFAIL'd is a bit more
> minimal.

One more thing: You've marked a bunch of these tests as 'XFAIL: linux'. Would 
'XFAIL: glibc' be more appropriate?


> Cheers,
> Jon
>> _______________________________________________
>> cfe-commits mailing list
>> cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits

Jon Roelofs
jonathan at codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery / Mentor Embedded

More information about the cfe-commits mailing list