From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13850 invoked by alias); 20 Feb 2002 17:49:55 -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 13734 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2002 17:49:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Feb 2002 17:49:54 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g1KHnlv04009; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 11:49:47 -0600 Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 09:49:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200202201749.g1KHnlv04009@duracef.shout.net> To: fnasser@redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa:testsuite} Overhaul sizeof.exp Cc: ac131313@cygnus.com, drow@mvista.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00551.txt.bz2 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. Michael C