From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26623 invoked by alias); 15 Jan 2003 17:51:51 -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 26616 invoked from network); 15 Jan 2003 17:51:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 Jan 2003 17:51:49 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18YtaR-0003Ec-00 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 13:52:32 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18YrhY-0008PR-00 for ; Wed, 15 Jan 2003 12:51:44 -0500 Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 17:51:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Remove all setup_xfail's from testsuite/gdb.mi/ Message-ID: <20030115175143.GA32268@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200301151744.h0FHi6O27664@duracef.shout.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200301151744.h0FHi6O27664@duracef.shout.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00569.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 11:44:06AM -0600, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote: > 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'. I'm not sure I agree with this. My point of view was that either it's an expected bug (environment) or it is a "known bug in the tool being tested". I don't like calling environment bugs KFAILs. Do that, and we'll just end up with no XFAILs... Associating a PR with them is a different issue. Just because we associate a PR doesn't mean we have to use KFAIL. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer