From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32542 invoked by alias); 20 Sep 2003 22:31:05 -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 32532 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2003 22:31:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Sep 2003 22:31:05 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.22 #1 (Debian)) id 1A0qFs-0005yN-Lh for ; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 18:31:04 -0400 Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 22:31:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [testsuite] add gdb.cp/gdb1355.exp Message-ID: <20030920223104.GA22943@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200309182127.h8ILR57W000549@duracef.shout.net> <3F6CCAC7.3020108@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F6CCAC7.3020108@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-09/txt/msg00432.txt.bz2 On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 05:46:47PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >ac> I also intend again proposing that existing XFAILS get yanked. > >dc> That sounds okay to me. > > > >Mmmm, I would like to dig down a level, rather than just blow > >away setup_xfail calls. > > > >First I would like to decide which hp configurations and which > >*compilers* we support, do some test runs on them, and weed out stuff > >that we don't need. That would help out a lot. Similarly for Sun. > > Per the discussion last time, I think its far cleaner and more efficient > use of our resources to just cut our losses and yank the lot. They're orthogonal... No objections to yanking the lot, but I wouldn't mind a list such as Michael suggests. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer