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

Andrew Cagney
2002-04-05T14:49:30Z

> 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.

I don't think this one is an option. The gdb.asm test was being skipped
and as a consequence everyone ignored it. Now that it fails, people are
fixing it.

Given it is a GDB ``bug'', is the correct approach:

set prms_id <i-can't-find-it>
FAIL ...

Andrew