Re: [_Complex test 2/4] _Complex type in varargs.exp

Pedro Alves
2011-05-20T09:09:27Z

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