Re: [PATCH] Fix xfail Sparc pattern

David S. Miller
2002-04-18T22:04:05Z

From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 12:21:06 -0400

> Fernando Nasser writes:
>
>> I wonder if we should activate this test and see where it fails and
>> start marking as XFAILS (KFAILS actually) and entering a bug report
>> when we see the regressions.
>
> I think so. The comment indicates that this is due to a problem
> inside gdb, not a problem with the environment, so that XFAIL is wrong
> in the first place.
>
> This is the old "XFAIL means an external program is not functional"
> versus "XFAIL means that gdb is wrong but it's too painful to fix"
> argument.

Sounds right to me. The ``correct fix'' is convert the code to generic
dummy frames (which in turn means work on generic dummy frames) but both
of those are GDB bugs.

I agree too, mark it as expected to pass and use generic dummy frame
support to fixup targets that show up to fail the test.

In fact, even though I had been over this code a million times, I
failed to notice the generic dummy frame mechanism, and I in fact
reimplemented this in some of my pending Sparc64 fixes. Thanks Andrew
for pointing this out! I'll fixup Sparc to use this before I submit
that Sparc64 fixes I have pending.