From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9303 invoked by alias); 5 Feb 2003 06:23:38 -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 9296 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2003 06:23:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2003 06:23:38 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h156Nb830408; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 00:23:37 -0600 Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 06:23:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200302050623.h156Nb830408@duracef.shout.net> To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, jimb@redhat.com Subject: Re: [Jim Blandy ] RFA: Check that `Local' is not in scope when it shouldn't be X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00174.txt.bz2 Looks okay to me too, I'll be catching it in the next spin. JimB> I couldn't figure out, though, why folks were advising me to use JimB> setup_kfail with a pattern that always matches, instead of simply JimB> calling kfail directly. So I just used kfail. Your intuition is proper. I wrote the 'setup_kfail' comments before kfail was implemented, and before we'd figured out our idioms for it. It turns out that we will have lots of 'kfail' and very few 'setup_kfail'. I think the remaining xfail's should be that way too (after we kill all the bogus ones). Michael C