Checkins and test passing

[Malcolm Wallace]

Ian Lynagh <igloo at earth.li> wrote:

> I think it would be a nice requirement that for a test to be marked as
> expected-to-fail there must be an open bug about it.

Hmm.  Isn't the meaning upside down here?  I thought an "expected
failure" was a program that is supposed to fail by the rules of the
language.  Therefore there is no bug.  An "unexpected" failure would be
one representing a compiler bug.  We may well know what the bug is, and
what is needed to fix it, so in that narrow sense the failure is
expected, but I would certainly have thought that, given the choice
between fixing an unexpected or expected failure, the unexpected one
is the worrisome one.

If the "expected/unexpected" terminology is confusing, then maybe it
would be better to rename them to "desired/undesired" failures?

Regards,
    Malcolm