From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29039 invoked by alias); 5 Apr 2002 00:55:52 -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 29022 invoked from network); 5 Apr 2002 00:55:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.230.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 5 Apr 2002 00:55:49 -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 QAA17594; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 16:55:46 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3CACF57B.B55F03E4@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 16:55:00 -0000 From: Fernando Nasser Organization: Red Hat Canada X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Cagney CC: Daniel Jacobowitz , 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> <3CACCA82.2090005@cygnus.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00144.txt.bz2 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