From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15991 invoked by alias); 20 Feb 2002 17:24:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 15782 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2002 17:24:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.230.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Feb 2002 17:24:20 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (rtl.cygnus.com [205.180.230.21]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA02116; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 09:24:09 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3C73DB96.3FF6DCE6@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 09:24:00 -0000 From: Fernando Nasser Organization: Red Hat Canada X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.9-21 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz CC: Andrew Cagney , Michael Elizabeth Chastain , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa:testsuite} Overhaul sizeof.exp References: <200202200456.g1K4uwX27098@duracef.shout.net> <3C73B949.90209@cygnus.com> <3C73CBB0.E0244B31@redhat.com> <20020220115110.A14867@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00548.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 11:15:44AM -0500, Fernando Nasser wrote: > > Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > > > > The XFAIL policy is different to GDB. GDB interprets XFAILs to mean not > > > supported due to something outside of GDB's control. Not this is a bug > > > but we're not fixing it at present. > > > > > > > Gdb follows the Dejagnu intended meaning for XFAILs. > > Really? I think you mean that GCC does. From the DejaGNU manual: > > `XFAIL' > A test failed, but it was expected to fail. This result indicates > no change in a known bug. If a test fails because the operating > system where the test runs lacks some facility required by the > test, the outcome is `UNSUPPORTED' instead. > > XFAILS are intended to represent known bugs, and we should be using > UNSUPPORTED more heavily. > "lacks some facility required by the test" means something that the OS or run environment does not support and will never support because it is just not the way things are done on that type of system. We should _not_ be using UNSUPPORTED at large. "This result indicates no change in a known bug." This sentence is too ambiguous. I guess you can twist it in any way you want. The GDB meaning for "A test failed, but it was expected to fail", for many years now, has been that there is a problem in the OS/runtime environment that will cause it to fail. That is why it is normally marked as xfail for some specific target triplet. I guess the reasoning was that nobody normally "expects" something to fail, we expect something to work. We only expect it to fail when there is something beyond our control that will cause it to fail and that we hope will be fixed (and things suddenly become XPASSes). Anyway, who has the right interpretation or not is irrelevant. We do have two distinct situations and it would be nice to be able to handle them accordingly. -- Fernando Nasser Red Hat Canada Ltd. E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com 2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300 Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9