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

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

[Michael Elizabeth Chastain]

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.

Michael C

===

Test Run By mec on Thu Dec 19 00:20:19 2002
Native configuration is i686-pc-linux-gnu

		=== gdb tests ===

Schedule of variations:
    unix/gdb:debug_flags=-gdwarf-2

Running target unix/gdb:debug_flags=-gdwarf-2
Running /berman/fsf/_today_/source/gdb/HEAD/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.c++/annota2.exp ...
PASS: gdb.c++/annota2.exp: breakpoint main
PASS: gdb.c++/annota2.exp: annotation set at level 2
PASS: gdb.c++/annota2.exp: run until main breakpoint
PASS: gdb.c++/annota2.exp: print class
PASS: gdb.c++/annota2.exp: continue until exit
PASS: gdb.c++/annota2.exp: delete bps
PASS: gdb.c++/annota2.exp: breakpoint at main
PASS: gdb.c++/annota2.exp: run until main breakpoint
PASS: gdb.c++/annota2.exp: set watch on a.x
FAIL: gdb.c++/annota2.exp: watch triggered on a.x
KFAIL: gdb.c++/annota2.exp: annotate-quit (PRMS: c++/544)

		=== gdb Summary ===

# of expected passes		9
# of unexpected failures	1
# of known failures		1
/berman/fsf/_today_/berman/native/install/gdb/HEAD/bin/gdb version  2002-12-12-cvs -nx

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

[David Carlton]

On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 23:47:49 -0600, Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec@shout.net> said:

> 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 certainly don't think that it should say "c++/544", simply because
it's not a C++ bug: I'm planning to change the category in GNATS
today.  (But to what?  tui?)

I have mixed feelings about whether or not it should say
"gdb/<number>" or "<category>/<number>".  I guess I don't find your
reasoning convincing: it's part of the GDB test suite, so I would
expect people to think that a bug "c++/<number>" refers to a bug in
GDB's C++ support.  (Which is normally correct, though I think not in
this particular case.)

On the other hand, I'm not yet convinced that the categories are
completely stable, and it's silly to either spend time changing the
test suite whenever a bug gets refiled or having the test suite and
GNATS not agree on the categories in question.  And listing bugs as
"gdb/<number>" gets around that problem nicely.

On the other hand, if somebody has gone to the effort of KFAILing a
test, then chances are that the bug in question has been analyzed
enough to be filed correctly, so maybe the categories are stable after
all.

So I'm torn.  That's one vote for "waffle" from me, and for "gdb" from
Michael; anybody else?

David Carlton
carlton@math.stanford.edu

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

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

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"?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

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

[Andrew Cagney]

> 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

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

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 05:04:00PM +0000, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >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)

It has, shame on me.  gdb/544 will be fine then.  It's still
GNATS-centric but it'll be pretty clear even after we move (hopefully)
to Bugzilla.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

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

[David Carlton]

On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 12:13:22 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> said:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 05:04:00PM +0000, Andrew Cagney wrote:

>> Just gdb/NNN is better - identify the bug database and not the category. 

> gdb/544 will be fine then.

Okay, then everybody likes gdb/NNN.  I'll check that version in.

David Carlton
carlton@math.stanford.edu

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

[David Carlton]

This patch KFAIL's the test 'annotate-quit' in gdb.c++/annota2.exp,
corresponding to PR c++/544.  If nobody objects, I'll commit it this
Friday; since it's the first KFAIL in the test suite, though, I wanted
to give people a couple of days to object and/or update their copies
of dejagnu.

Following a suggestion of Michael Chastain, I'm KFAILing only the
explicit regexp that I'm seeing as a failure.  Note that, in this
file, gdb_prompt is set to an unusual value, and that unusual value is
in fact the exact output that I'm seeing.

David Carlton
carlton@math.stanford.edu

2002-12-18  David Carlton  <carlton@math.stanford.edu>

	* gdb.c++/annota2.exp: KFAIL annotate-quit.

Index: annota2.exp
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.c++/annota2.exp,v
retrieving revision 1.6
diff -u -p -r1.6 annota2.exp
--- annota2.exp	13 May 2002 19:18:52 -0000	1.6
+++ annota2.exp	18 Dec 2002 22:17:31 -0000
@@ -214,6 +214,7 @@ send_gdb "\003"
 gdb_expect {
     -re "\r\n\032\032error-begin\r\nQuit\r\n\r\n\032\032quit\r\n$gdb_prompt$" \
 	    { pass "annotate-quit" }
+    -re "$gdb_prompt$" { kfail "c++/544" "annotate-quit" }
     -re ".*$gdb_prompt$" { fail "annotate-quit" }
     timeout { fail "annotate-quit (timeout)" }
 }