Re: [RFA/mi-testsuite] XFAIL mi*-console.exp

Fernando Nasser
2002-04-05T00:55:52Z

Andrew Cagney wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 11:27:13PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >
> >> >These tests are testing for a feature that exists either nowhere or just in
> >> >simulators and some remote stubs: that the inferior's output goes through
> >> >GDB and is properly encoded by the MI layer. Since support isn't there for
> >> >many remote debugging stubs or for native, I think these two tests should
> >> >be
> >> >XFAIL'd. Does that make sense, Andrew? If so, OK to commit this?
> >
> >>
> >> I believe GDB's rule for XFAIL is something that can't work (due to an
> >> external constraint) rather than doesn't work (due to a lack of code).
> >>
> >> Hence it was marked as a known bug rather than a limitation.
> >
> >
> > OK, so it isn't an XFAIL. I don't think FAIL is really appropriate
> > either; tests which test a not-yet-implemented feature (and one that I
> > think is a bad idea, for native targets, to be honest) don't add any
> > information by failing. UNSUPPORTED perhaps? Or just not running the
> > test in native setups, for now?
> Er, actually, XFAIL might be closer to the truth than UNSUPPORTED.
> Although neither indicate UNIMPLEMENTED.
>

I see. It is not UNSUPPORTED because the environment have it, just some
gsb stubs (and native) do not handle it (i.e., our fault).

Well, as we don't have UNIMPLEMENTED, we are left with only 2 options:

I guess we would use XFAIL if we decide that this is a feature that
we should have and not having it is a failure that should be fixed.

Otherwise we can just skip the test where it can't run.

--
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat Canada Ltd. E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9