From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24440 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2003 19:00:09 -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 24430 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2003 19:00:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Jan 2003 19:00:07 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0HJ03A04642; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 13:00:03 -0600 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 19:00:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200301171900.h0HJ03A04642@duracef.shout.net> To: fnasser@redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Remove all setup_xfail's from testsuite/gdb.mi/ Cc: ac131313@redhat.com, drow@mvista.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00645.txt.bz2 Good morning xfail crew, There are a lot of xfail's in the corpus, but the number is shrinking steadily with time. % cd testsuite % grep -r setup_xfail gdb.* | wc 5.2.1 649 5.3 577 HEAD%20030115 517 After sleeping on the problem, I like Daniel J's path for a while. Just keep banging on the test suite and reducing that "517" number with no more machinery and no Andrew C Big Rip. After we kill a bunch more of them then we can do some kind of Big Rip or new visual markings for the legitimate ones. > Just one note: there are cases where the XFAIL is produced by a 'xfail' > command inside a '-re' clause. I count 26 of those in HEAD%20030115. > The case for debugger format and compiler version is so common that I > would feel tempted to have a special function for that. The trouble is that you wind up with various boolean combinations, such as a test that xfail's with either gcc v2 stabs or icc+blah. I think the real issue is that we have to specify and document which compilers that the gdb test suite supports. Michael C