Re: [RFA] testsuite/gdb.c++/ref-types.exp: use runto

["Peter.Schauer" <Peter.Schauer@regent.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de>]

If you look at the CVS history of these tests, you will note that not all of
those tests were XFAIL'ed in the past.

gdb-4.17/gcc-2.8.1 handled most of these tests just fine, and they got
broken by the HP snowball, so it's not simply a matter of old-abi.

> Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> 
> Yes, but what Dan is trying to say (I guess) is that this is _not_ under GDB's control. I.e., it was not possible for GDB to do the right thing because of insufficient information from the compiler.  Is that right Dan?
> 
> If that is the case, it is correct to mark those as XFAILs. Something besides GDB -- something in the execution environment or on another piece of the toolchain -- causes this test to fail and there is not that can be done inside GDB, so the "expected fai> lure".
> 
> Maybe you guys can come up with a simple quick test to determine if we are dealing with v2 or v3.  It would be useful to condition tests.
> 
> 
> > 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
> 
> -- 
> Fernando Nasser
> Red Hat - Toronto                       E-Mail:  fnasser@redhat.com
> 2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
> Toronto, Ontario   M4P 2C9
> 
> 


-- 
Peter Schauer			pes@regent.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de