From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23250 invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2002 22:00:12 -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 23226 invoked from network); 24 Oct 2002 22:00:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Oct 2002 22:00:11 -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 g9OLcew11215 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:38:40 -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 g9OM09l27906; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 18:00:09 -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 g9OM08D26545; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 15:00:08 -0700 Message-ID: <3DB86D68.8D0F878D@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 15:00:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder Organization: Red Hat, Inc. X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Cagney CC: David Carlton , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Remove all setup_xfail's from testsuite/gdb.mi/ References: <3DB83EC1.6070609@redhat.com> <3DB86CB6.10801@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00525.txt.bz2 Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > 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. We all agree about that.