Re: [rfa:testsuite} Overhaul sizeof.exp

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

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