Re: [patch/rfc] Remove all setup_xfail's from testsuite/gdb.mi/

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 05:22:42PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> I think the patch, regardless of KFAIL, is still technically correct. It 
> fixes a bug: the XFAILs are all wrong so removing them changes the 
> testsuite so that the numbers it reports better reflect reality.  It's 
> just unfortunate that part of the reality is a jump in testsuite 
> failures.  Remember, the XFAILs were originally added to artifically 
> deflate the test failure rate.

As you wish.  Michael's already said he just ignores gdb.mi; if it
picks up this many new failures, probably so will I.  I don't agree
that it's technically correct; the XFAILs were being used for a
slightly suboptimal meaning since KFAIL wasn't available.  They aren't
real failures no matter which way I look at it.

> >  Would it be
> > hard to file PRs for all the failures you see and mark them KFAIL?
> 
> I think that would be a step backwards as all it would do is fill the 
> bug database with reports like ``test failed''.

What do you want in the database then?

> At least this does move things forward - it puts the tesuite in a state 
> where everyone and everyone can incrementally do the marking.

But nobody will...

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer