From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25470 invoked by alias); 3 Jan 2003 21:39:23 -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 25463 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2003 21:39:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 3 Jan 2003 21:39:22 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18UbPm-00035B-00 for ; Fri, 03 Jan 2003 17:39:46 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18UZXE-0008Dt-00 for ; Fri, 03 Jan 2003 16:39:20 -0500 Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 21:39:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] KFAIL gdb.c++/annota2.exp watch triggered on a.x Message-ID: <20030103213920.GA21687@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00092.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 01:35:59PM -0800, David Carlton wrote: > Here's a patch to KFAIL the test "watch triggered on a.x" in > gdb.c++/annota2.exp, corresponding to PR breakpoints/38. The test > fails consistently on all the configurations that Michael tests. > > This is an obvious candidate for KFAILing. My only question is when > it should currently be expected to pass. The PR indicates that it > might pass on some platforms; on the other hand, it fails reliably > on i686-pc-linux-gnu. So what I did was change the two existing > instances of > > { pass "watch triggered on a.x" } > > to > > { setup_kfail "gdb/38" "i686*-*-*" > pass "watch triggered on a.x" } > > but I made the new KFAIL case unconditional. That seemed to be the > safest thing: that way, any FAIL or KPASS message is interesting. May I recommend at the least "i?86"? Also, I really don't see the point of the kpass's; before doing this, you need to establish if those patterns are acceptable results; if so, they are passes, period. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer