From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12230 invoked by alias); 7 Jun 2004 18:58:09 -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 12209 invoked from network); 7 Jun 2004 18:58:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO blount.mail.mindspring.net) (207.69.200.226) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 7 Jun 2004 18:58:08 -0000 Received: from user-119a90a.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.36.10] helo=berman.michael-chastain.com) by blount.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1BXPJv-0001MZ-00; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 14:58:07 -0400 Received: by berman.michael-chastain.com (Postfix, from userid 502) id 2A4274B104; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 14:58:16 -0400 (EDT) To: randolph@tausq.org Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] mark structs2.exp tests as kfail on hppa Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Message-Id: <20040607185816.2A4274B104@berman.michael-chastain.com> Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 18:58:00 -0000 From: mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain) X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg00134.txt.bz2 > Should i mark the test as kfailed? I don't know what's the "common > practice" for marking gcc bugs in gdb test cases... "KFAIL" means known failure inside gdb. "XFAIL" means expected failure in something outside gdb (like gcc). So these would be XFAIL's. setup_xfail has a three-argument form so you can say "setup_xfail hppa-*-* gcc/15860". And if you wanna be real fussy: if { [ test_compiler_info gcc-*-* ] } then { setup_xfail hppa-*-* gcc/15860 } Michael C