From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5904 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2003 20:06:11 -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 5887 invoked from network); 16 Jan 2003 20:06:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Jan 2003 20:06:09 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0GK65K18945; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 14:06:05 -0600 Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 20:06:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200301162006.h0GK65K18945@duracef.shout.net> To: ac131313@redhat.com, drow@mvista.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Remove all setup_xfail's from testsuite/gdb.mi/ Cc: fnasser@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00625.txt.bz2 My two cents ... Daniel J suggests that we keep making improvements: > XFAIL->KFAIL > random XFAIL->analyzed XFAIL > XFAIL->PASS The problem is that, in the source code, "setup_xfail" looks the same for both our crap legacy XFAIL's and the nice new analyzed xfail's. Perhaps a little mechanism like "gdb_mark_external_fail" would help. Then "grep xfail" would find only the shrinking pool of old stuff. > This I definitely like. "Cantfix"? I propose "external". I find "cantfix" to be a bit arrogant and a bit negative. And it doesn't distinguish between "I can't fix this because I don't have the resources" versus "I can't fix this because I can show you that binutils is feeding gdb incorrect / incomplete information". Michael C