From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13571 invoked by alias); 20 Dec 2002 17:12:37 -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 13432 invoked from network); 20 Dec 2002 17:12:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 20 Dec 2002 17:12:24 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18PSZa-0003kT-00; Fri, 20 Dec 2002 13:12:38 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18PQiA-0000gw-00; Fri, 20 Dec 2002 12:13:22 -0500 Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 10:09:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch] kfail gdb.c++/annota2.exp annotate-quit Message-ID: <20021220171322.GA2610@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200212190547.gBJ5lnN24237@duracef.shout.net> <20021219160057.GA28605@nevyn.them.org> <3E034D80.7060904@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E034D80.7060904@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00584.txt.bz2 On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 05:04:00PM +0000, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 11:47:49PM -0600, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote: > > > >>My testbed gives me 34 KFAIL's on 34 configurations, just fine. > >>This is native i686-pc-linux-gnu, gcc v2 and v3, dwarf-2 and stabs+. > >> > >>I use stock FSF dejagnu 1.4.3. I also built dejagnu from the > >>sourcware cvs "dejagnu" module and did a test run with that. > >>That works fine too. > >> > >>I have appended a gdb.sum file for anyone who is curious. > >>The KFAIL line looks like this: > >> > >> KFAIL: gdb.c++/annota2.exp: annotate-quit (PRMS: c++/544) > >> > >>We can't do anything about the "PRMS:" part, that comes from dejagnu. > >> > >>I have an objection to the name "c++/544". It is way too easy for > >>this name to get quoted out of context (the context being that it is > >>a gdb bug in the gdb database). I think this will cause confusion. > >>I would like to see "gdb/544" here. > >> > >>Sure, right *now* while we are discussing the issue, everyone knows > >>that "c++/544" means a gdb bug in the gdb PR database. Wait six weeks > >>and then quote some people a gdb.sum report that says "c++/482" in it > >>and see if anyone jumps to the incorrect conclusion that c++/482 means > >>a bug in the C++ compiler. > > > > > >I want the C++ part in there. How about "PRMS: [gdb] c++/544"? > > Just gdb/NNN is better - identify the bug database and not the category. > Otherwize everytime someone changes a bug category, they have to go > and update the corresponding testsuite kfail entry (Ulgh!). Also, as > michael-c points out, you can't determine if a c++/NNN is gdb or gcc (I > think it is reasonable for kfails's to refer to the gcc bug database). > > (I think this has come up before) It has, shame on me. gdb/544 will be fine then. It's still GNATS-centric but it'll be pretty clear even after we move (hopefully) to Bugzilla. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer