From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20184 invoked by alias); 6 Apr 2002 23:04:50 -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 19581 invoked from network); 6 Apr 2002 23:04:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.112.240.27) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Apr 2002 23:04:48 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80ED43CB7; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 18:04:09 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3CAF7EE9.5040502@cygnus.com> Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 15:04:00 -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> <3CACCA82.2090005@cygnus.com> <20020404165310.A2239@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00237.txt.bz2 > On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 04:49:54PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >> >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'm just going to sit on this patch until we can decide what the result > should be. I've posted both XFAIL and UNSUPPORTED versions for your > viewing pleasure... Suggest a bug report so it isn't forgotten. Andrew