From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17615 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2007 21:23:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 17604 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Jan 2007 21:23:53 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 16 Jan 2007 21:23:42 +0000 Received: from brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost.sibelius.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1]) by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l0GLN6eh025615; Tue, 16 Jan 2007 22:23:06 +0100 (CET) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id l0GLN5kF029500; Tue, 16 Jan 2007 22:23:06 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 21:23:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200701162123.l0GLN5kF029500@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: nickrob@snap.net.nz CC: ghost@cs.msu.su, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <17836.26533.146945.793792@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> (message from Nick Roberts on Tue, 16 Jan 2007 18:50:29 +1300) Subject: Re: MI failures related to string printing References: <200701121351.29310.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <17831.31430.442855.801431@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <17836.26533.146945.793792@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-01/txt/msg00365.txt.bz2 > From: Nick Roberts > Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 18:50:29 +1300 > > > Is there any chance you'll robustify the testsuite? > > If your just talking about the one FAIL in mi-var-child.exp, why not > just mark it as an XFAIL? I see that the other XFAIL actually > passes (for me, at least). The very fact that we're even having this discussion means that you did something wrong Nick; you either didn't check for regressions or ignored them. Turning a regression test from a PASS into a FAIL, means you've changed behaviour. Now that change could be intentional, but then you should have said so when you submitted the patch, and you should have adjusted the test. I'm still not convinced the change is ok. Having 'char *' point to a buffer that's not null-terminated is not uncommon. We have a lot of those in gdb itself. Mark