From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7994 invoked by alias); 18 Sep 2003 00:56:13 -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 7987 invoked from network); 18 Sep 2003 00:56:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Sep 2003 00:56:12 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.22 #1 (Debian)) id 19zn5g-0000fX-J0 for ; Wed, 17 Sep 2003 20:56:12 -0400 Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 00:56:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [testsuite] add gdb.cp/gdb1355.exp Message-ID: <20030918005612.GA2546@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200309180053.h8I0rvWc012998@duracef.shout.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200309180053.h8I0rvWc012998@duracef.shout.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-09/txt/msg00388.txt.bz2 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