Re: [patch/rfc] KFAIL gdb.c++/annota2.exp watch triggered on a.x

Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-01-03T21:51:38Z

On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 01:48:25PM -0800, David Carlton wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 16:39:20 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> said:
>
> > May I recommend at the least "i?86"?
>
> That makes sense.
>
> > 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.
>
> Sorry, I should have explained my reasoning there. My theory behind
> that is that they're a reminder to people who fix bugs that they
> should update the test suite. If somebody fixes this bug a year from
> now, doesn't know that there's a test case for the bug, and doesn't
> pay attention to gdb.sum (just to the naked 'make check'), then that
> person might easily forget to update the test suite. (Especially
> since the test case in question is in gdb.c++/annota2.exp, whereas the
> bug doesn't involve either C++ or annotations!)
>
> So it seems to me that, if the failure isn't reliable, then we should
> leave the success case as a PASS, but if the failure is reliable, then
> KPASS is slightly better.

How do you envision them updating the testsuite? Certainly not by
removing the KFAIL's pattern; that defeats the point of having a
regression test. That's why I like Michael's approach of having a pass
pattern and a kfail pattern.

--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer