From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28831 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2003 14:30:58 -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 28818 invoked from network); 16 Jan 2003 14:30:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Jan 2003 14:30:53 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18ZCvX-0005Yc-00 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 10:31:35 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18ZB2j-0005q4-00 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 09:30:53 -0500 Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 14:30:00 -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: <20030116143053.GA22382@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200301151744.h0FHi6O27664@duracef.shout.net> <20030115175143.GA32268@nevyn.them.org> <3E26C140.8050400@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E26C140.8050400@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00600.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 09:27:12AM -0500, Fernando Nasser wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > >> > >>>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. > > > > That is correct. The last argument of a setup_xfail, if it does not > contain '-' (Argh! Don't blame me, it was already there since immemorial > times) is the PR number. It can easily be a gdb/NNN bug id. We cannot > enforce the syntax, but we can enforce it as a police. [Last or first? Oh, the answer is "either" according to framework.exp.] > So, to address Michael's concerns, we could open a WONTFIX bug report (is > there such category? This is the Bugzilla one) saying that it is a GCC or > whatever bug and outside of our control and add the id to the setup_xfail. We could use the Suspended state for this, and we could just assign them to a new environment/ category... > Why doing this? A script can go through the KFAILs (for each platform) > and, by reading the Gnats database, automatically create a KNOWN BUGS man > page section, or a section of a Release Notes document. Using the same > principle, it can go through the XFAILs and generate a section of known > limitations _on a specific environment_ (the one where the test results > were obtained). > > Regards, > Fernando > > P.S.: Does someone know how to programatically access the Gnats database? Yes; the GNATS software package includes a number of remote tools, particularly nquery-pr. You have to find a copy of GNATS 3.x; the 4.x tools don't interoperate with the version on sourceware. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer