From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10444 invoked by alias); 20 May 2011 09:09:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 10432 invoked by uid 22791); 20 May 2011 09:09:26 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 May 2011 09:09:12 +0000 Received: (qmail 23840 invoked from network); 20 May 2011 09:09:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO scottsdale.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 20 May 2011 09:09:11 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [_Complex test 2/4] _Complex type in varargs.exp Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 09:09:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.35-28-generic; KDE/4.6.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" , Yao Qi References: <4DC401D0.1050500@codesourcery.com> <4DD51E40.6080401@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201105201009.07830.pedro@codesourcery.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2011-05/txt/msg00475.txt.bz2 I completely agree. On Thursday 19 May 2011 16:27:39, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Thu, 19 May 2011, Yao Qi wrote: > > > Tests in this case also fail on armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabi and > > x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Shall I have to file yet another two PRs for > > armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabi and x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu respectively, > > and KFAIL them to different PR separately? At least, I didn't see such > > usage elsewhere in gdb testsuite. > > I think the correct division is one PR per target architecture for all > complex types ABI issues, rather than one PR per test failure. That's the > only way a target maintainer can sensibly fix their target's problems, > test that they are fixed, and close the relevant PR; otherwise you have a > catch-all bug that's open for ever without meaningfully reflecting what > actually needs to be done to fix the problem. > > > IMO, KFAIL with target triplet works for the situation that one test > > passes on all ports except one or two. However, our test fails on most > > ports, different from KFAIL's typical usage. > > The aim is that soon the bug *is* fixed for all the most commonly used > targets - but will likely remain open much longer for many more rarely > used targets. -- Pedro Alves