From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28638 invoked by alias); 5 Apr 2002 19:09:18 -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 28575 invoked from network); 5 Apr 2002 19:09:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 5 Apr 2002 19:09:15 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g35J99P32716; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 13:09:09 -0600 Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 11:09:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200204051909.g35J99P32716@duracef.shout.net> To: fnasser@redhat.com Subject: Re: RFC: KFAILs [Was: [RFA/mi-testsuite] XFAIL mi*-console.exp] Cc: ac131313@cygnus.com, drow@mvista.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, rob@welcomehome.org X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00174.txt.bz2 Actually I prefer the pair "kpass/kfail" to "xpass/kfail" and "xpass/xfail"! "xpass/kfail" looks weird and lets in some ambiguity. Can you implement it as "kpass/kfail"? fna> I can change things to accept the second form like setup_xfail does fna> and just make sure that one with no '-' in it was found (the bug id) fna> and error out if none was found. Just let me know if you prefer fna> this instead of the positional first argument (I am now having fna> second thoughts about that). I don't have a strong preference. (It sounds like you don't either). Michael C