From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12342 invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2002 21:57:12 -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 12307 invoked from network); 24 Oct 2002 21:57:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Oct 2002 21:57:12 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99B773D4A; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:57:10 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3DB86CB6.10801@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:57:00 -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: David Carlton 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; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00523.txt.bz2 > On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 14:41:05 -0400, Andrew Cagney 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