[llvm-dev] [RFC] Require PRs for XFAILing tests

Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Wed Sep 28 10:31:18 PDT 2016

On 9/28/2016 12:21 PM, Chris Bieneman wrote:
> 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.

And the directive would require what specifically?

If anything, UNSUPPORTED may be better for this.


Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, 
hosted by The Linux Foundation

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list