From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13082 invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2002 21:22:47 -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 12885 invoked from network); 24 Oct 2002 21:22:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Oct 2002 21:22:44 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E9B63D4A; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:22:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3DB864A2.6010801@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:22:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020824 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Remove all setup_xfail's from testsuite/gdb.mi/ References: <3DB83EC1.6070609@redhat.com> <20021024190956.GA20879@nevyn.them.org> <3DB84A34.6070801@redhat.com> <20021024195912.GA12331@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00516.txt.bz2 > On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 03:29:56PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >> >On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 02:41:05PM -0400, 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'm known to be a testsuite nazi - I really, really dislike the current >> >failure levels, and people aren't doing much about it. I'm all in >> >favor of getting the ball rolling. But are you planning to do the >> >marking promptly, or just make us stare at even more MI failures for a >> >while? I've been staring at the mi-console one for a year... > >> >> I believe that you're free to start kfailing things :-) >> >> As for me doing the kfail's, the chances of me getting back to that >> short term are, lets say, pretty remote. I'm just trying to get the >> process started - eliminate the task that's going to cop the most flack :-) Like I said, the task that would cop the most flack ... :-) > In that case, I'd ask you not to commit this. There's no point in > adding to the FAILs if it doesn't gain us anything. I think the patch, regardless of KFAIL, is still technically correct. It fixes a bug: the XFAILs are all wrong so removing them changes the testsuite so that the numbers it reports better reflect reality. It's just unfortunate that part of the reality is a jump in testsuite failures. Remember, the XFAILs were originally added to artifically deflate the test failure rate. > Would it be > hard to file PRs for all the failures you see and mark them KFAIL? I think that would be a step backwards as all it would do is fill the bug database with reports like ``test failed''. At least this does move things forward - it puts the tesuite in a state where everyone and everyone can incrementally do the marking. Andrew