Re: [rfa:testsuite} Overhaul sizeof.exp

Daniel Jacobowitz
2002-02-20T18:07:27Z

On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 11:49:47AM -0600, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> It sounds like we understand the alternatives and everyone's got opinions
> about them.
>
> [0] Status quo
> [1] FAIL the test
> [2] XFAIL the test
> [3] KFAIL the test
>
> I'm concerned that for each alternative, someone will find a flaw, and
> therefore we'll stick with [0] and keep rejecting useful tests.
>
> Fernando and Daniel and Andrew, I'd like to hold your feet to the fire:
> Can you please rank these in priority order and indicate how many of the
> high priority ones are acceptable.
>
> Also there may very well be a [4] that I haven't heard of or thought of.
>
> My rank is [2] > [1] > [3] > [0]. [2], [1], and [3] are acceptable to me.
> [0] is not.

[3] is best for me. I disagreed with Fernando's claim that we are using
XFAIL the way DejaGNU defines it; I do not disagree that we need more
granularity. [1] is barely tolerable. [2] and [0] are not.

As far as I'm concerned, the ideal path would be:
- Add KFAIL support.
- Add new failing tests that we can fix in GDB as KFAIL
- Change appropriate existing XFAILs to KFAILs, and document
BOTH XFAILS AND KFAILS!

--
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer