From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11709 invoked by alias); 4 Apr 2002 21:49:55 -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 11700 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2002 21:49:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Apr 2002 21:49:53 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 358203E78; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 16:49:54 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3CACCA82.2090005@cygnus.com> Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 13:49:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020328 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA/mi-testsuite] XFAIL mi*-console.exp References: <20020402194252.A20826@nevyn.them.org> <3CABD621.9080506@cygnus.com> <20020404001337.B11510@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00132.txt.bz2 > 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. Andrew > Aside, fernando and I had a brief discussion about xfail vs unsupported and came up with the following concrete example. > > Attach/detach: > > FreeBSD has a bug in its detach, since at present it doesn't work but did in the past, and will again in the next release it will work, it gets marked as ``xfail'. Next release it will mysteriously ``xpass'' and can be adjusted accordingly. > > Cygwin, due to limitations in the underlying OS, simply wasn't able to support detach, it should be marked as ``unsupported''. (As a foot note, recent versions of the underlying OS, did fix this limitation).