From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-15182-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 24025 invoked by alias); 8 May 2002 20:50:43 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 24002 invoked from network); 8 May 2002 20:50:40 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.83.203)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 May 2002 20:50:40 -0000
Received: from redhat.com (reddwarf.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.50])
	by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA23158;
	Wed, 8 May 2002 13:50:36 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <3CD98C8A.384344AB@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 13:50:00 -0000
From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat, Inc.
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
CC: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>, Michael Snyder <msnyder@cygnus.com>,
        gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFA/RFC] Tweak for a gdb.mi test.
References: <200205080109.g4819B821604@reddwarf.sfbay.redhat.com> <20020508013041.GA29600@nevyn.them.org> <3CD887A4.6010605@cygnus.com> <3CD88738.2E9B1BC4@redhat.com> <3CD89631.4010201@cygnus.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00230.txt.bz2

Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> >>  From memory, a suggestion was to let people select the back-trace
> >> policy independant of the current architecture.
> >
> >
> > I thought we also had a policy of not inserting tests
> > that we knew would fail on some targets?  Something about
> > this being a regression test...
> 
> My understanding of the ``the regression test'' is that it stops people
> adding ``feature'' tests that demonstrate bugs in things that have never
> worked (or are not even implemented).  It avoids, among other things,
> the problem of not knowing of a FAIL is a bug in GDB or in a testcase
> that never worked.
> 
> I look at this test as something similar to call-ar-st.  It has been
> demonstrate to work on one platform (I think the original was Arm/eCos
> but more recently GNU/Linux i386) and should work on other platforms.

OK, I yield.  Patch withdrawn.