From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4686 invoked by alias); 25 Oct 2002 00:35:52 -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 4630 invoked from network); 25 Oct 2002 00:35:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 25 Oct 2002 00:35:52 -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 g9P0EKw14461 for ; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 20:14:20 -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 g9P0Zol30587; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 20:35:50 -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 g9P0ZnD31970; Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:35:49 -0700 Message-ID: <3DB891E5.15E95AE6@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 17:35:00 -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> <3DB86B1A.8050003@redhat.com> <3DB86D05.6261C67@redhat.com> <3DB885F7.8050405@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00538.txt.bz2 Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > But nobody will... > > > >> > >> In one hit, or here and there? I know I will. I just won't be spending > >> a solid week reviewing all of them. > > > > > > Well, so far we've got two nays. Why don't Daniel and I shut up, > > and wait to see if there are any yays? > > Michael, it might still be helpful if you could summarise the technical > grounds for your position. This isn't a question of yay/nay but rather > a technical and strategic problem that needs to be resolved. I feel like I've said all there is to be said about it. Relatively few people work on mi or mi tests. It seems to me more productive if we start on a small subset of tests that a large number of people may actually be motivated to hack on. Including me. You might say, I want to play, and choosing mi excludes me from the game.