From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6022 invoked by alias); 10 Nov 2004 14:55:49 -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 5918 invoked from network); 10 Nov 2004 14:55:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO krynn.se.axis.com) (212.209.10.221) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 10 Nov 2004 14:55:41 -0000 Received: from ignucius.se.axis.com (ignucius.se.axis.com [10.83.5.18]) by krynn.se.axis.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Debian-5local0.1) with ESMTP id iAAEtbAD001793; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:55:37 +0100 Received: from ignucius.se.axis.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ignucius.se.axis.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8/Debian-2woody1) with ESMTP id iAAEtbdD014411; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:55:37 +0100 Received: (from hp@localhost) by ignucius.se.axis.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8/Debian-2woody1) id iAAEtbqh014407; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:55:37 +0100 Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 14:55:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200411101455.iAAEtbqh014407@ignucius.se.axis.com> From: Hans-Peter Nilsson To: cagney@gnu.org CC: hans-peter.nilsson@axis.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <41921F54.7040308@gnu.org> (message from Andrew Cagney on Wed, 10 Nov 2004 09:01:56 -0500) Subject: Re: [RFA:] sim-defs.exp: support xfail X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00194.txt.bz2 > Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 09:01:56 -0500 > From: Andrew Cagney > Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > > Directly taken from the same option in the ld run_dump_test. > > Ok to commit? > > 2004-11-10 Hans-Peter Nilsson > > > > * lib/sim-defs.exp (run_sim_test): Support "xfail" option. > > What do you mean by "xfail"? (Hint, check a current dejagnu document > where it describes kfail :-) I know about kfail, but I'm agnostic. I just mean what happens for the ld run_dump_test "xfail" option; a simple setup_xfail. The purpose is to be able to keep failing tests around but not get the total results marked as partially failing. Reasons for the failure would be unspecified, matching both xfail and kfail usage. To me, it doesn't really matter whether it's kfail or xfail (vivid descriptions of kfail vs. xfail to /dev/null). In the sim testsuite I believe it'll be used very sparingly, perhaps not even for things that are checked in. But it'd be Nice to Have. Is the change acceptable by naming the option "kfail" and calling "setup_kfail"? Or do you want both? brgds, H-P PS. BTW, the dejagnu documentation on is not current; KFAIL isn't mentioned there.