Re: [patch/rfc] Remove all setup_xfail's from testsuite/gdb.mi/

[Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec@shout.net>]

Fernando Nasser writes:
> As I said, this is just a brainstorm.  Please comment.

Ooh!  Ooh!

First I think that we are making great progress, especially Daniel J.
There is no hurry on the policy issue because the test suite corpus is
getting a lot better.  In particular, I feel no hurry to rip out
every setup_xfail en masse, because we are making progress with them
individually.

I agree with Fernando that it's okay to tie every XFAIL to a gdb PR
and turn it into a KFAIL (at least, I think he is saying that).

Let's take a specific case.  gdb.base/constvars.exp has a lot of
tests such as "const char * foo ; ptype foo".  With gcc 2.95.3/stabs+,
the "ptype" prints "char * foo".  This happens because gcc 2.95.3/stabs+
does not put any const information in the stabs.  This is probably never
going to get fixed in the gcc 2 series.

Now the real problem comes to light.  'K' and 'X' are really orthogonal.
'K' means that we know about the problem, and 'X' means that it is
a problem in an external tool, and these two things are separate.
But we made them an either/or, so we have to choose.

I'd rather have this become a KFAIL with reference to a gdb PR.  Then
the gdb PR can say that this incorrect behavior happens, but it's not
gdb's fault.  The gdb PR should refer to a gcc PR or other external PR.
And then we can't close the gdb PR until gcc revives gcc 2.X development
or gdb drop supports for gcc 2.X.

We could add another PR state for these kind of PR's, or we could
just use the 'suspended' state.

From the gdb user's point of view, a bug is a bug.  A gdb user can do
the same thing as the test suite and then file a PR: 'gdb fails to
print 'const' for const types'.

Michael C