From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23817 invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2002 19:09:33 -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 23748 invoked from network); 24 Oct 2002 19:09:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Oct 2002 19:09:32 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 184oHy-0000tJ-00; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 15:09:06 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 184nMi-0005qR-00; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 15:09:56 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:09:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Remove all setup_xfail's from testsuite/gdb.mi/ Message-ID: <20021024190956.GA20879@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <3DB83EC1.6070609@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3DB83EC1.6070609@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00511.txt.bz2 On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 02:41:05PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > Hello, > > GDB's testsuite is known to be full of xfails that are really kfails or > testsuite bugs. Rather than try to audit each xfail in turn, the > proposal as been to rip out all the xfails (creating a clean slate) and > start marking up the tests from scratch - two steps forward but first > one step back. > > I figure I might as well try to get the ball rolling on this and find > out just how much real resistance there is going to be to a change like > this. To that end, this removes all xfail's from the gdb.mi testsuite. > Similar tests, for the other directories, would follow. I'm known to be a testsuite nazi - I really, really dislike the current failure levels, and people aren't doing much about it. I'm all in favor of getting the ball rolling. But are you planning to do the marking promptly, or just make us stare at even more MI failures for a while? I've been staring at the mi-console one for a year... I know it's not practical to do them completely without getting the testsuite run on a lot of systems, by a lot of people. But you can do a fair first-order approximation without that. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer