From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9482 invoked by alias); 17 Mar 2004 19:30:29 -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 9473 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2004 19:30:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mclean.mail.mindspring.net) (207.69.200.57) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Mar 2004 19:30:28 -0000 Received: from user-119a90a.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.36.10] helo=berman.michael-chastain.com) by mclean.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1B3gk9-0000O1-00; Wed, 17 Mar 2004 14:30:21 -0500 Received: by berman.michael-chastain.com (Postfix, from userid 502) id 112C44B104; Wed, 17 Mar 2004 14:30:26 -0500 (EST) To: carlton@kealia.com, mec.gnu@mindspring.com Subject: Re: [rfa/doco] PROBLEMS: add regressions since gdb 6.0 Cc: eliz@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Message-ID: <20040317193026.112C44B104@berman.michael-chastain.com> Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 19:30:00 -0000 From: mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain) X-SW-Source: 2004-03.o/txt/msg00403.txt Message-ID: <20040317193000.wzeujzyKv83tBuRW1WPITq6qkrTNsmalGwBOCkCVRk0@z> > I don't think that looking for KFAILs is a good way to identify > whether or not a specific PR is a regression. That's why I quoted the script's input and gdb's output. It's pretty clear that something simple and useful worked in gdb 6.0 and does not work in gdb 6.1. Some of the local.exp results are a real pain in this regard. > In this particular instance, if you go to your table comparing 6.0 suite > HEAD to 6.1 suite HEAD and, for example, look at the third column (GCC > 3.3.3, DWARF-2), you'll see a whole bunch of FAIL=>PASS transitions. That's true. > So I think the testsuite regression=>PR+description transition should > involve some more steps - the corresponding PR may be much broader > than the particular testsuite regression, and some of those broader > areas may involve situations where GDB has improved rather than > regressed. My first impulse is to pop open a more narrow, more accurate PR for "print (ClassWithEnum::PrivEnum) 42". What do you think? I agree with you; there is a step where we have to translate PR gdb/NNNN into text for PROBLEMS. The text in PROBLEMS has to be accurate, and I want it to actually cover all the regression problems that we know about. And it's also better if it's narrow, because the more narrow it is, the more users can say "okay, THAT bug does not affect me, I can upgrade". (I think regressions are special compared to regular bugs because if someone is using gdb 5.3 or gdb 6.0, and they are considering upgrading to gdb 6.1, then the new regressions are the bugs that are most important to them). Michael C