From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3861 invoked by alias); 20 Feb 2002 18:07:27 -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 3739 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2002 18:07:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Feb 2002 18:07:20 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian)) id 16db9B-0004eZ-00; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 13:07:17 -0500 Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 10:07:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Cc: fnasser@redhat.com, ac131313@cygnus.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa:testsuite} Overhaul sizeof.exp Message-ID: <20020220130717.A17663@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain , fnasser@redhat.com, ac131313@cygnus.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200202201749.g1KHnlv04009@duracef.shout.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200202201749.g1KHnlv04009@duracef.shout.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00553.txt.bz2 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