From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <chastain@cygnus.com>
To: chastain@cygnus.com, dberlin@redhat.com
Cc: fnasser@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFA] testsuite/gdb.c++/ref-types.exp: use runto
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 13:15:00 -0000
Message-id: <200103162115.NAA06455@bosch.cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-03/msg00291.html

Mmmm, a philosophical dispute.

Daniel Berlin writes:
> They need to be xfail'd for old-abi, but not for new-abi.

I believe that when gdb has a bug which is under its control, that the
test suite should issue a FAIL, not an XFAIL.

Here is a gdb log entry for gcc 2.95.2, gdb CVS, Red Hat Linux 7 native,
stabs:

  (gdb) print pAe->f()
  $1 = 134547192
  (gdb) XFAIL: gdb.c++/virtfunc.exp: print pAe->f()

If gdb said "I'm sorry, but pAe->f() is too complex for me", I would
accept that as an XFAIL.  But when gdb prints wrong answers, that should
be a FAIL.

I'm interested in other maintainer's opinions on this because I'm
planning to submit patches to change such XFAIL's to FAIL's, so that
the test suite can actually report what is broken in C++ support.

Michael