From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 556 invoked by alias); 20 Feb 2002 16:51:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 441 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2002 16:51:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Feb 2002 16:51:32 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16dZxW-0003uW-00; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 11:51:10 -0500 Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 08:51:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Fernando Nasser Cc: Andrew Cagney , Michael Elizabeth Chastain , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa:testsuite} Overhaul sizeof.exp Message-ID: <20020220115110.A14867@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Fernando Nasser , Andrew Cagney , Michael Elizabeth Chastain , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200202200456.g1K4uwX27098@duracef.shout.net> <3C73B949.90209@cygnus.com> <3C73CBB0.E0244B31@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3C73CBB0.E0244B31@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00544.txt.bz2 On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 11:15:44AM -0500, Fernando Nasser wrote: > Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > > The XFAIL policy is different to GDB. GDB interprets XFAILs to mean not > > supported due to something outside of GDB's control. Not this is a bug > > but we're not fixing it at present. > > > > Gdb follows the Dejagnu intended meaning for XFAILs. Really? I think you mean that GCC does. From the DejaGNU manual: `XFAIL' A test failed, but it was expected to fail. This result indicates no change in a known bug. If a test fails because the operating system where the test runs lacks some facility required by the test, the outcome is `UNSUPPORTED' instead. XFAILS are intended to represent known bugs, and we should be using UNSUPPORTED more heavily. > We've noticed that we need something else for "Known bugs" > long ago. I suggested that we should create the KFAILs for that, > which would be documented with a bug database reference. > > I still think we should do that. I agree on the documenting part at least. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer