Re: [RFA/mi-testsuite] XFAIL mi*-console.exp

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 11:27:13PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >These tests are testing for a feature that exists either nowhere or just in
> >simulators and some remote stubs: that the inferior's output goes through
> >GDB and is properly encoded by the MI layer.  Since support isn't there for
> >many remote debugging stubs or for native, I think these two tests should 
> >be
> >XFAIL'd.  Does that make sense, Andrew?  If so, OK to commit this?
> 
> I believe GDB's rule for XFAIL is something that can't work (due to an 
> external constraint) rather than doesn't work (due to a lack of code).
> 
> Hence it was marked as a known bug rather than a limitation.

OK, so it isn't an XFAIL.  I don't think FAIL is really appropriate
either; tests which test a not-yet-implemented feature (and one that I
think is a bad idea, for native targets, to be honest) don't add any
information by failing.  UNSUPPORTED perhaps?  Or just not running the
test in native setups, for now?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer