From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13115 invoked by alias); 3 Jan 2003 22:30:36 -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 13108 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2003 22:30:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 3 Jan 2003 22:30:35 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18UcDJ-0003A5-00; Fri, 03 Jan 2003 18:30:58 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18UaKl-0004DP-00; Fri, 03 Jan 2003 17:30:31 -0500 Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 22:30:00 -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: <20030103223031.GA15995@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: David Carlton , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Michael Elizabeth Chastain References: <20030103213920.GA21687@nevyn.them.org> <20030103215134.GB9980@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/msg00107.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 02:14:25PM -0800, David Carlton wrote: > On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 16:51:34 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz said: > > > 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 actually exactly how I expect them to update the testsuite > (though they might want to keep the pattern around in a comment > somewhere, or even leave the pattern intact but replace the kfail by > fail plus a comment). If a bug is claimed to be fixed but isn't > actually fixed, then that bug isn't a known failure any more, so it > should be FAILed until the PR is reopened. > > Consider this scenario: we have a bug, with a test for it; that test > has a PASS pattern (either because people don't like KPASS or because > the bug is intermittent) and a KFAIL pattern. > Removing the test entirely would the point of having a regression > test. But removing patterns that handle casses that we don't expect > to occur should make the test more effective rather than less > effective: if we get surprising output from GDB, we want that to be > flagged as prominently as possible. > > At least, that's my reasoning. OK; you're definitely right. How about a compromise: we agree not to remove kfail patterns in the testsuite, but instead replace them with specific fail patterns and a commented out reference to the failure. That makes life much simpler. I still don't see what the point of the KPASS's is. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer