From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13487 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2003 19:30:31 -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 13455 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2003 19:30:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Jan 2003 19:30:29 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18Ze53-0000J7-00 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 15:31:13 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18ZcCG-0000XN-00 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 14:30:32 -0500 Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 19:30:00 -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: <20030117193032.GA603@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200301171900.h0HJ03A04642@duracef.shout.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00653.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jan 17, 2003 at 11:20:30AM -0800, David Carlton wrote: > On 17 Jan 2003 11:16:48 -0800, David Carlton said: > > > I'm gradually going through the current non-{PASS,KFAIL} results > > that I see on my test runs in gdb.c++, and investigating them; I'm > > not distinguishing between XFAIL and FAIL (and XPASS, for that > > matter) when doing so. Once I'm done with that, I'll move on to the > > xfail's that I don't see; I've noticed that there are an awful lot > > of DWARF 1 ones, which I assume actually are legit. > > Also, one thing I've noticed is that the string "FIXME" occurs a fair > number of times in gdb.c++, with a similar meaning to XFAIL (and > typically used in combination with XFAIL). That's another thing that > has to be audited. Yes. In particular, all the vtable related ones should be fixed. I just haven't figured out what the right output should look like, yet... -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer