From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14479 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2007 23:06:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 14465 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Jan 2007 23:06:03 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su (HELO zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su) (158.250.17.23) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 16 Jan 2007 23:05:57 +0000 Received: from Debian-exim by zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su with spam-scanned (Exim 4.50) id 1H6xNF-0005eM-Bf for gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com; Wed, 17 Jan 2007 02:05:54 +0300 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=ip6-localhost) by zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1H6xN4-0005e6-J6; Wed, 17 Jan 2007 02:05:38 +0300 From: Vladimir Prus Subject: Re: MI failures related to string printing To: Nick Roberts , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 23:06:00 -0000 References: <200701121351.29310.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <20070116204407.784494F6C7@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> User-Agent: KNode/0.10.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Message-Id: 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: 2007-01/txt/msg00373.txt.bz2 Nick Roberts wrote: > > > If your just talking about the one FAIL in mi-var-child.exp, why not > > > just > > > mark it as an XFAIL? I see that the other XFAIL actually passes (for > > > me, at least). > > I mean when "FIXME" is removed from the output string. > > > Why should it be an XFAIL? The test was working fine before your > > change, and I see no reason why the test cannot be modified to always > > pass. > > The aim of the testsuite is to test GDB and not just get 100% pass rate > (except > when we're on performance related pay!). The test presumably has value on > systems where it passes. Don't you think that a test that randomly fails depending on compiler version and the address at which the binary happens to load is completely useless. If I see it fail, how do I know if it signifies a bug in my (new) code, or not? > I'm sure it can be modified to always pass but > that's > only worthwhile if it remains a meaningful test. I don't know how to > devise such a test because it doesn't fail for me now. You just need to make sure the testcase never uses char* values that point to a single char, by making all single-char value char arrays of size 2 where the second element is zero, or by any other approach. - Volodya