From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22675 invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2002 21:26:07 -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 22578 invoked from network); 24 Oct 2002 21:26:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Oct 2002 21:26:05 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 184qQ7-000170-00; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:25:39 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 184pUr-0004HI-00; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:26:29 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:26:00 -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: <20021024212629.GA16334@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <3DB83EC1.6070609@redhat.com> <20021024190956.GA20879@nevyn.them.org> <3DB84A34.6070801@redhat.com> <20021024195912.GA12331@nevyn.them.org> <3DB864A2.6010801@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3DB864A2.6010801@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00517.txt.bz2 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