[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: lib/46433: tests/lib/libm/t_exp should not use exp() itself
The following reply was made to PR lib/46433; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Jukka Ruohonen <jruohonen%iki.fi@localhost>
To: Izumi Tsutsui <tsutsui%ceres.dti.ne.jp@localhost>
Subject: Re: lib/46433: tests/lib/libm/t_exp should not use exp() itself
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 18:57:08 +0300
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:47:10AM +0900, Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
> > And once again, the idea has never been to skip tests but to report these
> > as expected failures. As a developer, you should benefit from this as you
> > see directly whether and when a bug is fixed. Thus, this particular case
> > still requires the MD-specific check, which points to this PR upon failure.
> Only if the test correctly fails on bogus implementation?
> Tests which could return false positive won't show if a bug is fixed
> and just hide bugs.
Obviously. No one has claimed that there wouldn't be bugs in the tests. For
this case, there is still the twin PR lib/46434.
But when trying to see the forest from the trees: the decision is not always
clear particularly when emulators come to the picture. For instance, we've
captured a fair amount of Qemu-related FP bugs. But now that these are
counted as expected failures, we've noticed that new Qemu releases have
fixed some of these issues; see PR misc/44767.
And I don't particularly like the current #ifdef __vax__ madness either...
Main Index |
Thread Index |