From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21022 invoked by alias); 3 Jan 2003 21:17:04 -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 21008 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2003 21:17:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 3 Jan 2003 21:17:02 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h03LGhq19408; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 15:16:43 -0600 Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 21:17:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200301032116.h03LGhq19408@duracef.shout.net> To: carlton@math.stanford.edu, drow@mvista.com Subject: Re: RFC: gdb.c++/main-falloff.exp (a new KFAIL) Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00086.txt.bz2 Daniel J wrote: > Secondly, I really dislike this form. Adding gdb_expect's all over is > bad, because gdb_test has a much more thorough list of things to expect > indicating various errors. Better would be to solve this problem with > a little TCL. 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" David C replies: > It would be nice if the branches could execute arbitrary code, like > gdb_expect does, though, so that the xfails/kfails could be conditional > on the operating system, debug format, or whatever. I'm changing my mind about the gdb_test_multiple approach. I'm not opposed to gdb_test_multiple, but I don't want KFAIL activity to wait for it. My original goals, back around April 2002, were: (1) provide a way to add new tests which show bugs in gdb. For example, look at PR gdb/186, "gdb have problems with C++ casting". http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view&database=gdb&pr=186 I have test code for this. It's not even a new test case; it is more test code for gdb.c++/casts.exp (which does not cover classes that have virtual functions). My understanding is that it's forbidden to add new tests which FAIL, but acceptable to add new tests which KFAIL. I would like to commit my new tests and have them KFAIL with reference to PR gdb/186. We talked about problems like this 9 months ago and KFAIL is the solution that Fernando picked. (2) connect existing FAILs to the PR database. We have dozens of tests that already FAIL due to known reasons. I think everybody wants to start marking those with KFAIL. I'm getting dismayed by the new turn of events where KFAIL deployment is sprouting a dependency on new syntax in lib/gdb.exp which needs to be designed and implemented. I would rather do these things in parallel. There are already plenty of tests which use send_gdb/gdb_expect. If someone wants to implement a better facility than send_gdb/gdb_expect, go for it, I will support such an effort. As soon as it's available then I will convert gdb.c++/*.exp to use it. But I no longer want to hold off on KFAIL activity to wait for gdb_test_multiple. Michael C