From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Peter.Schauer" To: fnasser@cygnus.com (Fernando Nasser) Cc: chastain@cygnus.com, dberlin@redhat.com, fnasser@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] testsuite/gdb.c++/ref-types.exp: use runto Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 15:14:00 -0000 Message-id: <200103162314.AAA13573@reisser.regent.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de> References: <3AB283AC.FD95FEEE@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-03/msg00304.html 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