From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22142 invoked by alias); 18 Apr 2002 16:21:02 -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 22104 invoked from network); 18 Apr 2002 16:20:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Apr 2002 16:20:56 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FE933D1A; Thu, 18 Apr 2002 12:21:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3CBEF272.3060500@cygnus.com> Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 09:21:00 -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: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Cc: davem@redhat.com, fnasser@redhat.com, cagney@cygnus.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix xfail Sparc pattern References: <200204181606.g3IG6U914843@duracef.shout.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00597.txt.bz2 > 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. Andrew