From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25762 invoked by alias); 4 Apr 2002 05:13:35 -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 25755 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2002 05:13:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Apr 2002 05:13:34 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 16szZ3-00032i-00; Thu, 04 Apr 2002 00:13:37 -0500 Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 21:13:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA/mi-testsuite] XFAIL mi*-console.exp Message-ID: <20020404001337.B11510@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20020402194252.A20826@nevyn.them.org> <3CABD621.9080506@cygnus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3CABD621.9080506@cygnus.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00101.txt.bz2 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