From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17379 invoked by alias); 24 Aug 2012 16:57:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 17371 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Aug 2012 16:57:12 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 16:57:00 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q7OGuxeR004281 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 24 Aug 2012 12:56:59 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q7OGuvEJ012027; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 12:56:58 -0400 Message-ID: <5037B259.2040206@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 16:57:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120717 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pedro Alves CC: Jan Kratochvil , Yao Qi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Remove pass in skip_unwinder_tests References: <877gt1zbr5.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <1345715389-20955-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <1345715389-20955-2-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <20120824133738.GB5219@host2.jankratochvil.net> <5037A087.1090703@redhat.com> <20120824161854.GA10953@host2.jankratochvil.net> <5037B15E.1020809@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <5037B15E.1020809@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-08/txt/msg00748.txt.bz2 On 08/24/2012 05:52 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: > On 08/24/2012 05:18 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote: >> On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 17:40:55 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote: >>> Nothing actually FAILed here. We have lots of precedent for "supports-foo" or >>> "try this" style functions that issue no FAIL. >> >> There are cases which one can be sure they never can fail. But otherwise >> I find it as a testsuitea bug. >> >> >>> It is expected that >>> some systems won't have the unwinder hooks. In the absurd, issuing a FAIL for >>> these cases would be like issuing FAILs when tests are skipped because >>> a [istarget "foobar-*-*"] returns false. >> >> If the system does not have unwinder hook it will XFAIL. XFAIL is not even >> displayed on screen during interactive run. > (last minute editing made me lose a bit here) For completeness: > That's not what an XFAIL is for. XFAIL is when you do > "print 2+2", you expect "4" to come out, but you know that on > some broken systems instead "5" comes out, so you XFAIL on those systems, "some system with broken system libraries or kernel, or some such". If it were a GDB bug that only triggers on some systems, but still a GDB bug, it would be a KFAIL. > as in, to fix that _wrong result_, you need to fix something else, not GDB, > but there _is_ something broken that should be fixed. -- Pedro Alves