From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24004 invoked by alias); 20 Feb 2002 18:24:46 -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 23848 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2002 18:24:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Feb 2002 18:24:38 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g1KIORx09686; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 12:24:27 -0600 Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 10:24:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200202201824.g1KIORx09686@duracef.shout.net> To: drow@mvista.com, fnasser@redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa:testsuite} Overhaul sizeof.exp Cc: ac131313@cygnus.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00559.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > 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! > Fernando Nasser wrote: > I agree that that is the ideal plan. I don't know where I will find the > time but I would be willing to try and come up with a 'kfail' patch > if people really want it. Okay, I'm on board with KFAIL. I haven't heard anyone object to KFAIL. I'll go write the Sunday Project support for it (I am on vacation today). fn> I can discuss this with the Dejagnu author as well. Do you guys want fn> me to try and contact him? Yes please. Let's charge down the KFAIL path until it either works or we hit a brick wall. Michael C