From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17128 invoked by alias); 20 Sep 2003 21:46:50 -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 17119 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2003 21:46:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (207.219.125.105) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Sep 2003 21:46:49 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D50B2B89; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 17:46:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3F6CCAC7.3020108@redhat.com> Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 21:46:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030820 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Cc: carlton@kealia.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [testsuite] add gdb.cp/gdb1355.exp References: <200309182127.h8ILR57W000549@duracef.shout.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-09/txt/msg00429.txt.bz2 > ac> I also intend again proposing that existing XFAILS get yanked. > dc> That sounds okay to me. > > Mmmm, I would like to dig down a level, rather than just blow > away setup_xfail calls. > > First I would like to decide which hp configurations and which > *compilers* we support, do some test runs on them, and weed out stuff > that we don't need. That would help out a lot. Similarly for Sun. Per the discussion last time, I think its far cleaner and more efficient use of our resources to just cut our losses and yank the lot. > Also I don't want to pay much attention to this until gdb 6.0 > is out the door. We'll all agree to that one :-) > dc> There are a few XFAILS which have a bug number associated with them > dc> that's around 2400 or so: these are especially urgent, because it won't > dc> be all _that_ long before the bug number might start looking like a GDB > dc> bug number. They should definitly be yanked, they are meaningless. Andrew