From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29424 invoked by alias); 3 Jan 2003 21:51:38 -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 29416 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2003 21:51:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 3 Jan 2003 21:51:37 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18Ubbc-00036N-00; Fri, 03 Jan 2003 17:52:00 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18UZj4-0005zo-00; Fri, 03 Jan 2003 16:51:34 -0500 Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 21:51:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: David Carlton Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Michael Elizabeth Chastain Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] KFAIL gdb.c++/annota2.exp watch triggered on a.x Message-ID: <20030103215134.GB9980@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: David Carlton , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Michael Elizabeth Chastain References: <20030103213920.GA21687@nevyn.them.org> 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/msg00097.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 01:48:25PM -0800, David Carlton wrote: > On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 16:39:20 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz 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