From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20801 invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2002 21:39:12 -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 20698 invoked from network); 24 Oct 2002 21:39:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Oct 2002 21:39:08 -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 g9OLHbw05504 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:17:37 -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 g9OLd1l27660; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:39:01 -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 g9OLd0D25770; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:39:00 -0700 Message-ID: <3DB86874.50FB3D1E@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:39:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder Organization: Red Hat, Inc. X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz CC: Andrew Cagney , 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> <3DB864A2.6010801@redhat.com> <20021024212629.GA16334@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00520.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 05:22:42PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > 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. > > As you wish. Michael's already said he just ignores gdb.mi; if it > picks up this many new failures, probably so will I. I don't agree > that it's technically correct; the XFAILs were being used for a > slightly suboptimal meaning since KFAIL wasn't available. They aren't > real failures no matter which way I look at it. > > > > 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''. > > What do you want in the database then? > > > At least this does move things forward - it puts the tesuite in a state > > where everyone and everyone can incrementally do the marking. > > But nobody will... Removing the XFAILS without replacing them with KFAILS is not fixing a bug.