From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8080 invoked by alias); 22 Mar 2004 19:22:37 -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 8073 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2004 19:22:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (66.30.197.194) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Mar 2004 19:22:36 -0000 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 053A92B92; Mon, 22 Mar 2004 14:22:34 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <405F3CF9.1000308@gnu.org> Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2004 19:22:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040217 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [commit] Zap XPASS from watchpoints.exp; Was: [PATCH] Remove XPASS References: <200403221907.UAA12213@faui1d.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> In-Reply-To: <200403221907.UAA12213@faui1d.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00504.txt.bz2 > Andrew Cagney wrote: > > >>> Hmm, you tripped over a landmine :-(. In the past many of GDB's >>> testcases were incorrectly XFAILed (as a way of hiding design flaws that >>> were thought to be unfixable / or the individual had no intention of >>> fixing ...). XFAIL only applies to problems eXternal to GDB (OS bugs, >>> ...) which these are not. > > > I hadn't been aware of this interpretation of XFAIL in gdb; my understanding > (and current use in gcc) is that XFAIL means eXpected failure ... For GDB, I should more correctly state eXpected FAIL due to eXternal problem. Which is different to a Known FAIL due to GDB bug. :-) Andrew >>>I've removed the offending XFAIL junk. > > > Thanks! > > Bye, > Ulrich