stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martin Sebor <>
Subject Re: svn commit: r693419 - /stdcxx/branches/4.3.x/etc/config/xfail.txt
Date Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:10:30 GMT
Farid Zaripov wrote:
>> Is there some reason that you didn't just fix the regression shown in
>> STDCXX-1009?
>   Firstly, I found the regression some time later that I commited changes in xfail.txt.

Perhaps we need to define the process for when a failure should
go in xfail.txt? I'd be inclined to mark a failure expected on
a given branch when it can't be fixed on that branch given the
release criteria (e.g., because it's incompatible). Would that
work for everyone?


>   Secondly, I want fix the regression and at the same time leave STDCXX-968 fixed :)
>   Can you, please, verify that replacing 1 with 1L don't issues any warnings on 32-bit
and 64-bit aCC?
> Farid.

View raw message