From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7326 invoked by alias); 24 May 2011 10:00:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 7317 invoked by uid 22791); 24 May 2011 10:00:35 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (83.163.83.176) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 24 May 2011 10:00:18 +0000 Received: from glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p4O9ww7k021621; Tue, 24 May 2011 11:58:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id p4O9wuUb030981; Tue, 24 May 2011 11:58:56 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 10:00:00 -0000 Message-Id: <201105240958.p4O9wuUb030981@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: yao@codesourcery.com CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <4DDB7B97.2090904@codesourcery.com> (message from Yao Qi on Tue, 24 May 2011 17:34:15 +0800) Subject: Re: [_Complex test 4/4 V3] _Complex tests in callfuncs.exp References: <4DC401D0.1050500@codesourcery.com> <4DC75036.4040806@codesourcery.com> <4DD4A5DC.9060004@codesourcery.com> <4DD6238D.40501@codesourcery.com> <4DDB0DC6.9050200@codesourcery.com> <201105240859.p4O8xH7Q019617@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <4DDB7B97.2090904@codesourcery.com> 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/msg00555.txt.bz2 > Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 17:34:15 +0800 > From: Yao Qi > > On 05/24/2011 04:59 PM, Mark Kettenis wrote: > >> > This is the version 3 of patch 4/4. In this version, > >> > setup_kfail_for_target is used to KFAIL the same fail to different PRs > >> > according to target triplet, same as what I did in patch 3/4. > > Can't you fold this behaviour into the normal setup_kfail? > > I don't want to propagate this changes to setup_kfail in DejaGnu, > because I don't know how setup_kfail is used elsewhere. It is better to > keep setup_kfail_for_target local in GDB, IMO. Ah, I didn't realize that setup_kfail was part of dejagnu proper. Still I think that setup_kfail_for_target is what the behaviour of setup_kfail should be. So dejagnu should be changed. I'd say you should just go with your previous version that uses setup_kfail, and submit the enhancement of setup_kfail to the dejagnu maintainers. I believe you can link together bugs in bugzilla, so in the interim, you could use that feature to link together the various bug reports such that people can find the right one even if the bug ID that gets printed is the wrong one. Anyway, getting these tests in is more important than getting the linking to bug reports exactly right. If other people think that setup_kfail_for_target is the way to go, feel free to ignore me.