From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7722 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2003 20:12:04 -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 7703 invoked from network); 16 Jan 2003 20:11:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 16 Jan 2003 20:11:59 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18ZIFd-0006GA-00 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 16:12:41 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18ZGMo-00062T-00 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2003 15:11:58 -0500 Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 20:12:00 -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: <20030116201157.GA23197@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200301162006.h0GK65K18945@duracef.shout.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200301162006.h0GK65K18945@duracef.shout.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00626.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 02:06:05PM -0600, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote: > 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. I was going to mark individual files, but the concept is the same... then we can kill the markers when we're done. > > 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". I like "external". -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer