From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32170 invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2002 21:18:26 -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 32097 invoked from network); 24 Oct 2002 21:18:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Oct 2002 21:18:23 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (nat-pool-rdu-dmz.redhat.com [172.16.52.200]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g9OKuqw00681 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:56:52 -0400 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g9OLICl27423; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:18:13 -0400 Received: from redhat.com (reddwarf.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.50]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g9OLICD25341; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:18:12 -0700 Message-ID: <3DB86394.812BFE78@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:18:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder Organization: Red Hat, Inc. X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Cagney CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Remove all setup_xfail's from testsuite/gdb.mi/ References: <3DB83EC1.6070609@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00515.txt.bz2 Andrew Cagney wrote: > > Hello, > > GDB's testsuite is known to be full of xfails that are really kfails or > testsuite bugs. Rather than try to audit each xfail in turn, the > proposal as been to rip out all the xfails (creating a clean slate) and > start marking up the tests from scratch - two steps forward but first > one step back. > > I figure I might as well try to get the ball rolling on this and find > out just how much real resistance there is going to be to a change like > this. To that end, this removes all xfail's from the gdb.mi testsuite. > Similar tests, for the other directories, would follow. I don't know if MI is the best choice to start with. Who's going to fix them up? Certainly not me. Why not pick one or two mainstream tests, from gdb.base, that have a lot of xfails in them. Let us get a feel for the pain threshold. Changes to gdb.mi don't tell me a thing, because I generally ignore it.