Re: RFC: gdb.c++/main-falloff.exp (a new KFAIL)

[Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec@shout.net>]

Hi Daniel!

> First of all, KFAIL is (in my opinion) for things that we have analyzed
> and established to be known bugs _in the tool under test_.  That's what
> differentiates them from XFAILs; I thought that was the consensus.

You are right.  I am mixing two issues here.  I agree with you,
but my code doesn't.  :-(

I would like to file a gcc bug on this and then it would be an xfail.
It's only a kfail because I am so conservative about marking bugs
as "gdb bugs" until proven otherwise.  In the past we have been
lax about blaming things as xfail prematurely.

> I.E. the "return 0" is outside of the lexical block for main.  That's
> not necessarily wrong.  We have to decide if it is wrong - whether the
> test case should be updated or a GCC bug report filed.  My inclination
> is that it's a GCC bug.

Me too.  How about if I file it as such, and then make this an XFAIL?

> GDB is behaving exactly as expected given its inputs; ergo, this is not
> a KFAIL at all.

POW.  Ya got me.

> What do you think of:
>   gdb_test_multiple "info locals" \
> 	{pass "(i|j|k) = (101|102|103)\r\n(i|j|k) = (101|102|103)\r\n(i|j|k) = (101|102|103)"
> 	 kfail "gdb/900" "No locals."} \
> 	"testing locals"

I am open to new syntax.  I do prefer gdb_test to send_gdb/gdb_expect.
I never thought of extending the gdb_test idea but it's a good idea.

So if you're cool with me filing a gcc bug report, I can s/kfail/xfail/,
close PR gdb/900 as "not a gdb bug -- see PR gcc/9NNN", and we can
wrangle about gdb_test_multiple.

I will definitely suspend committing this for a while.

Michael C