From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31120 invoked by alias); 20 Feb 2002 17:42:45 -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 30962 invoked from network); 20 Feb 2002 17:42:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.230.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Feb 2002 17:42:43 -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 JAA04134; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 09:42:37 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3C73DFE9.885BC65C@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 09:42:00 -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: Michael Elizabeth Chastain CC: drow@mvista.com, ac131313@cygnus.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa:testsuite} Overhaul sizeof.exp References: <200202201717.g1KHHYO30993@duracef.shout.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00550.txt.bz2 Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote: > > Hmmm, let's start by looking at the alternatives. Suppose someone writes > a new test that revels an unexpected bug in gdb (hi Andrew). > > [0] Stqtus quo: we reject the test. I agree that this is not good. > [1] FAIL it: we accept the test and let it FAIL. Makes it harder for engineers to check if a toolchain is healthy. > [2] XFAIL it: we accept the test and mark it with XFAIL. It will be forgotten in the middle of so many other XFAILs. > [3] KFAIL it: we accept the test and mark it with KFAIL. > With this one you can have a script that produces a "Release Notes" section with the known bugs by retrieving the bug description from the database (based on the bug id mentioned in the KFAIL). The list of KFAILs corresponds to the bugs we all should be trying to fix (and that we can fix in GDB independently from any fixes to compilers, operation systems, etc.) > [3] has a problem because KFAIL does not exist. If the senior maintainers > decide to approve [3] then I can add it to my analysis tables right away, > but someone will have to add it to dejagnu. > It is just copy and paste xfail code and add a bit to force the bug id to be mandatory. > I agree with Daniel Jacobowitz; I think [2] is the right thing to do. This same discussion keeps coming back. We discovered by trial and error that XFAILing things only serves to hide them. But if everybody wants to try again, lets enforce some very stringent police using the Gnats/Bugzilla database so that the XFAILs are tracked and removed when the fix is in. > It's also practical because we can start today. > I don't think this is a good argument. This has a long time impact and we should not do it the "easy" way. We once xfailed things in mass and it did not go very well. If we are going to do it lets do it very cautiously, after discussing how effective our enforcement police can be. -- Fernando Nasser Red Hat Canada Ltd. E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com 2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300 Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9