Re: [patch] kfail gdb.c++/annota2.exp annotate-quit

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>]

> On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 11:47:49PM -0600, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> 
>> My testbed gives me 34 KFAIL's on 34 configurations, just fine.
>> This is native i686-pc-linux-gnu, gcc v2 and v3, dwarf-2 and stabs+.
>> 
>> I use stock FSF dejagnu 1.4.3.  I also built dejagnu from the
>> sourcware cvs "dejagnu" module and did a test run with that.
>> That works fine too.
>> 
>> I have appended a gdb.sum file for anyone who is curious.
>> The KFAIL line looks like this:
>> 
>>   KFAIL: gdb.c++/annota2.exp: annotate-quit (PRMS: c++/544)
>> 
>> We can't do anything about the "PRMS:" part, that comes from dejagnu.
>> 
>> I have an objection to the name "c++/544".  It is way too easy for
>> this name to get quoted out of context (the context being that it is
>> a gdb bug in the gdb database).  I think this will cause confusion.
>> I would like to see "gdb/544" here.
>> 
>> Sure, right *now* while we are discussing the issue, everyone knows
>> that "c++/544" means a gdb bug in the gdb PR database.  Wait six weeks
>> and then quote some people a gdb.sum report that says "c++/482" in it
>> and see if anyone jumps to the incorrect conclusion that c++/482 means
>> a bug in the C++ compiler.
> 
> 
> I want the C++ part in there.  How about "PRMS: [gdb] c++/544"?

Just gdb/NNN is better - identify the bug database and not the category. 
  Otherwize everytime someone changes a bug category, they have to go 
and update the corresponding testsuite kfail entry (Ulgh!).  Also, as 
michael-c points out, you can't determine if a c++/NNN is gdb or gcc (I 
think it is reasonable for kfails's to refer to the gcc bug database).

(I think this has come up before)

Andrew