From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16735 invoked by alias); 5 Apr 2002 14:49:30 -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 16728 invoked from network); 5 Apr 2002 14:49:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.112.240.27) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 5 Apr 2002 14:49:29 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DC863E31; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 09:49:25 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3CADB974.8090605@cygnus.com> Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 06:49:00 -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: Fernando Nasser 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> <3CACF57B.B55F03E4@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00156.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. 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 FAIL ... Andrew