Re: [testsuite] add gdb.cp/gdb1355.exp

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Wed, Sep 17, 2003 at 08:53:57PM -0400, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> dc> For one thing, it would be an XFAIL, because it's a GCC bug,
> dc> not a GDB bug.
> 
> The test script, gdb.cp/gdb1355.exp, refers to PR gdb/1355.
> gdb/1355 is an external PR and it refers to PR gcc/12066.
> So there is a gdb PR in there.
> 
> dc> For another thing, though, the bug in question has been fixed,
> dc> so we don't expect it to fail: if it does, it should show up as a FAIL.
> 
> This has been a controversy in the past, too.
> 
> My view is that "KFAIL" means "Known FAIL", which basically means
> there is a PR for it (the PR is the locus of knowledge).

I don't think that was the consensus.  KFAILs are known failures of the
tool under test, i.e. bugs in it.  This is a problem in GDB's input. 
That makes it an xfail.

> dc> I would leave in the new test, with branches and comments as is,
> dc> but I would change all the occurrences of kfail to fail.
> 
> I prefer gdb1355.exp the way it is but I would be okay with that change
> if other people want it that way.
> 
> Michael C
> 

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer