From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16696 invoked by alias); 30 Dec 2002 16:05:08 -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 16688 invoked from network); 30 Dec 2002 16:05:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 30 Dec 2002 16:05:07 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id gBUG4s303613; Mon, 30 Dec 2002 10:04:54 -0600 Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 08:09:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200212301604.gBUG4s303613@duracef.shout.net> To: drow@mvista.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFC: gdb.c++/main-falloff.exp (a new KFAIL) X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00756.txt.bz2 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