From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2753 invoked by alias); 24 Oct 2002 23:36:52 -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 2740 invoked from network); 24 Oct 2002 23:36:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Oct 2002 23:36:51 -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 g9ONFKw02634 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 19:15:20 -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 g9ONail29212; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 19:36:44 -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 g9ONaiD29962; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:36:44 -0700 Message-ID: <3DB8840C.ACA095ED@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 16:36:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder Organization: Red Hat, Inc. X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Cagney CC: Daniel Jacobowitz , 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> <3DB86874.50FB3D1E@redhat.com> <3DB882DD.8050009@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00536.txt.bz2 Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > 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. > > Why? > > While not immediatly installing KFAILs does increase the number of > FAILs, GDB's failure rate has, for the last >2 years been artifically > deflated to the tune of ~200! All I'm doing is removing that artifical > adjustment, putting things back to where they should have been >2 years ago. > > Those XFAILs should have been pulled years ago but were not. Instead, > as a political compromise, the move/debate was delayed until after > Fernando invested their own time in getting KFAIL added. Are we now > going to delay things by another N years while we all sit around and > wait for someone to magically volenteer to do, in a single hit, all that > audit work? Calm down, your points are not under debate, and no one made the suggestion you imply. Particularly the "magically" part.