[llvm-dev] [RFC] Require PRs for XFAILing tests
Chris Bieneman via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Sep 28 10:21:51 PDT 2016
This may be an unpopular opinion (and I don’t have the full context on those specific issues), but I believe that these are an abuse of XFAIL, and should probably be written in terms of REQUIRES instead of XFAIL.
I believe XFAIL tests actually execute, and are just marked as expected failure. If a test is not expected to ever succeed, we shouldn’t bother running it, which is what the REQUIRES directives are for.
> On Sep 28, 2016, at 10:12 AM, Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> On 9/28/2016 11:39 AM, Chris Bieneman via llvm-dev wrote:
>> I believe that any test that is marked XFAIL is a bug
> I don't know if that's true.
> ; ARM & AArch64 run an extra SimplifyCFG which disrupts this test.
> ; XFAIL: arm,aarch64
> ; Hexagon runs passes that renumber the basic blocks, causing this test
> ; to fail.
> ; XFAIL: hexagon
> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
More information about the llvm-dev