From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-95417-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 29888 invoked by alias); 23 Oct 2012 18:22:57 -0000
Received: (qmail 29879 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Oct 2012 18:22:56 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.4 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,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, 23 Oct 2012 18:22:50 +0000
Received: from glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost [127.0.0.1])	by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q9NIMjP4017998;	Tue, 23 Oct 2012 20:22:45 +0200 (CEST)
Received: (from kettenis@localhost)	by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.5/8.14.3/Submit) id q9NIMglc016141;	Tue, 23 Oct 2012 20:22:43 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 18:22:00 -0000
Message-Id: <201210231822.q9NIMglc016141@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
To: yao@codesourcery.com
CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <50866C19.8070402@codesourcery.com> (message from Yao Qi on Tue,	23 Oct 2012 18:06:17 +0800)
Subject: Re: ping: [PATCH] Fix kfail in gdb.base/callfuncs.exp
References: <1350301607-16574-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <50864048.4010400@codesourcery.com> <201210230836.q9N8aZHO017504@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <50866C19.8070402@codesourcery.com>
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-10/txt/msg00425.txt.bz2

> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 18:06:17 +0800
> From: Yao Qi <yao@codesourcery.com>
> 
> On 10/23/2012 04:36 PM, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > I don't think decoupling the triplet from the setup_kfail this way is
> > a good idea.
> 
> In general, yes, but for the target supports bi-arch, we can't 
> differentiate each arch in the same target triplet, unless we teach 
> setup_kfail to understand each arch in the same target triplet.  WDYT?

To be frank I think there something really wrong the way two different
target triplets now can actually designate the same three ABIs.

How about fixing the bug instead? ;

  <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2012-10/msg00424.html>

There you are!  I'll remove the setup_kfails in a follow-up diff.