Displaying 1 result from an estimated 1 matches for "pr3294".
Did you mean:
pr3214
2016 Sep 28
6
[RFC] Require PRs for XFAILing tests
On 28 September 2016 at 10:08, Chris Bieneman via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> I cannot think of any situation where a universally failing test
> should be in-tree unless it is a bug that someone is expecting to fix.
It seems moderately common to mark something XFAIL temporarily to get
the bots green while then going ahead to fix the issue. Your proposal
would add