Re: [rfa/doco] PROBLEMS: add regressions since gdb 6.0

Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2004-03-17T19:30:29Z

> 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