From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11253 invoked by alias); 29 Nov 2001 22:37:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 10970 invoked from network); 29 Nov 2001 22:36:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by hostedprojects.ges.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Nov 2001 22:36:19 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian)) id 169ZnQ-000432-00 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2001 17:36:44 -0500 Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 07:19:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: tolerate unavailable struct return values Message-ID: <20011129173644.A15429@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20011129220913.2D72A5E9D8@zwingli.cygnus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20011129220913.2D72A5E9D8@zwingli.cygnus.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-SW-Source: 2001-11/txt/msg00362.txt.bz2 Message-ID: <20011120071900.sSsh1b5CmzVBJUb-WH7i7TnZY74i-xTVN93MhW6RMZg@z> On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 05:09:13PM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote: > > On some architectures, it's impossible for GDB to find structs > returned by value. These shouldn't be failures. Should they be > passes? Out of curiousity, which architectures? And to be pedantic, I suspect that it might be "not always possible" rather than actually impossible. Nit-picking aside, I agree with Michael. This is the most appropriate use for XFAIL, as opposed to some of the other things we use it for :) -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer