From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9484 invoked by alias); 20 Dec 2002 17:04:20 -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 9475 invoked from network); 20 Dec 2002 17:04:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (217.35.15.104) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 20 Dec 2002 17:04:14 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57E8D3DC9; Fri, 20 Dec 2002 17:04:00 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <3E034D80.7060904@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 09:12:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20021211 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch] kfail gdb.c++/annota2.exp annotate-quit References: <200212190547.gBJ5lnN24237@duracef.shout.net> <20021219160057.GA28605@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00583.txt.bz2 > 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