From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3535 invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2002 21:32:28 -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 3440 invoked from network); 24 Oct 2002 21:32:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Oct 2002 21:32:25 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C1673D4A; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:32:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3DB866E7.4010605@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:32:00 -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: Michael Snyder Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Remove all setup_xfail's from testsuite/gdb.mi/ References: <3DB83EC1.6070609@redhat.com> <3DB86394.812BFE78@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00519.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. True. For the MI though, I know all the existing XFAILs are bogus so I'm in a stronger position to argue that they should be removed anyway. Besides, it appears MI is being worked on at present. Anyway, it will look like this: > Before: > > === gdb Summary === > > # of expected passes 8298 > # of unexpected failures 60 > # of unexpected successes 10 > # of expected failures 172 > # of unsupported tests 2 > > After: > > === gdb Summary === > > # of expected passes 8308 > # of unexpected failures 232 > # of unsupported tests 2 Andrew.