Re: [PATCH] Fix xfail Sparc pattern

["David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>]

   From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
   Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 12:21:06 -0400

   > Fernando Nasser writes:
   > 
   >> I wonder if we should activate this test and see where it fails and
   >> start marking as XFAILS (KFAILS actually) and entering a bug report 
   >> when we see the regressions.
   >
   > I think so.  The comment indicates that this is due to a problem
   > inside gdb, not a problem with the environment, so that XFAIL is wrong
   > in the first place.
   > 
   > This is the old "XFAIL means an external program is not functional"
   > versus "XFAIL means that gdb is wrong but it's too painful to fix"
   > argument.
   
   Sounds right to me.  The ``correct fix'' is convert the code to generic 
   dummy frames (which in turn means work on generic dummy frames) but both 
   of those are GDB bugs.
   
I agree too, mark it as expected to pass and use generic dummy frame
support to fixup targets that show up to fail the test.

In fact, even though I had been over this code a million times, I
failed to notice the generic dummy frame mechanism, and I in fact
reimplemented this in some of my pending Sparc64 fixes.  Thanks Andrew
for pointing this out!  I'll fixup Sparc to use this before I submit
that Sparc64 fixes I have pending.