Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>
To: David Carlton <carlton@math.stanford.edu>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Remove all setup_xfail's from testsuite/gdb.mi/
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:57:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3DB86CB6.10801@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ro1y98nzfca.fsf@jackfruit.Stanford.EDU>

> On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:41:05 -0400, Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> said:
> 
> 
>> 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.
> 
> 
> Can you give me a little guidance here?  Elena recently made the
> suggestion that I should add tests to the testsuite for namespace
> stuff, even before I've modified GDB to handle that.  That sounded
> sensible to me, so I added that to a branch, and marked them all as
> xfail.

I think Elena mentioned KFAIL.  Any way, that is want you want to use - 
you'll need to bug report any failures though.

> I suspect I was wrong about that, though I'm not sure about the
> subtleties of what xfail is actually supposed to mean.  I was thinking
> I should go and change them to kfail, but now I'm not confident that I
> know the intended semantics of that, either.  Is kfail only allowed
> for tests with a PR associated to them?  Admittedly, in a branch,
> xfail and kfail mean whatever I want them to mean, I suppose, and I'm
> not going to try to get those tests added to the mainline unless I can
> bring along much of the code that cause them to pass instead of fail.

A fairly good definition is:

KFAIL == bug, in GDB, something to fix.
XFAIL == bug, not in GDB (kernel, debug info, linker, ...), something to 
ignore.

> I guess I don't see the point in removing xfails from the testsuite:
> it's useful information, it doesn't make regression testing any harder
> (there, the main culprit is the !@#%# schedlock test), so why throw
> that away?  If xfail has the wrong meaning, then change it to kfail;
> if kfail also has the wrong meaning, then change the meaning of kfail.

People have been XFAILing bugs in GDB.  That is simply wrong.

Andrew



  reply	other threads:[~2002-10-24 21:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-10-24 11:41 Andrew Cagney
2002-10-24 12:09 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2002-10-24 12:29   ` Andrew Cagney
2002-10-24 12:58     ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2002-10-24 14:22       ` Andrew Cagney
2002-10-24 14:26         ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2002-10-24 14:39           ` Michael Snyder
2002-10-24 16:31             ` Andrew Cagney
2002-10-24 16:36               ` Michael Snyder
2002-10-24 14:50           ` Andrew Cagney
2002-10-24 14:58             ` Michael Snyder
2002-10-24 15:31               ` Ben Elliston
2002-10-24 16:44               ` Andrew Cagney
2002-10-24 17:35                 ` Michael Snyder
2002-10-24 18:25                   ` Andrew Cagney
2002-10-24 14:18 ` Michael Snyder
2002-10-24 14:32   ` Andrew Cagney
2002-10-24 14:39 ` David Carlton
2002-10-24 14:57   ` Andrew Cagney [this message]
2002-10-24 15:00     ` Michael Snyder
2002-10-24 15:26     ` David Carlton
2002-10-24 15:36       ` Andrew Cagney
2003-01-15 15:55 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-01-15 17:25   ` Fernando Nasser
2003-01-16 16:53     ` Andrew Cagney
2003-01-16 17:05       ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-01-16 19:03         ` Andrew Cagney
2003-01-16 19:55           ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-01-15 17:44 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2003-01-15 17:51 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-01-16 14:27   ` Fernando Nasser
2003-01-16 14:30     ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-01-16 14:46       ` Fernando Nasser
2003-01-16 14:52         ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-01-16 15:46     ` Andrew Cagney
2003-01-16 14:20 ` Fernando Nasser
2003-01-16 17:07 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2003-01-16 17:12 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2003-01-16 20:06 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2003-01-16 20:12 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-01-17 14:12   ` Fernando Nasser
2003-01-17 16:05     ` Andrew Cagney
2003-01-17 14:26 ` Fernando Nasser
2003-01-17 19:00 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2003-01-17 19:16 ` David Carlton
2003-01-17 19:20   ` David Carlton
2003-01-17 19:30     ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-01-17 19:28 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-01-17 19:28 Michael Elizabeth Chastain
2003-01-17 19:34 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-01-17 19:32 Michael Elizabeth Chastain

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=3DB86CB6.10801@redhat.com \
    --to=ac131313@redhat.com \
    --cc=carlton@math.stanford.edu \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox