From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9335 invoked by alias); 19 May 2011 15:27:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 9326 invoked by uid 22791); 19 May 2011 15:27:55 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 19 May 2011 15:27:41 +0000 Received: (qmail 6047 invoked from network); 19 May 2011 15:27:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digraph.polyomino.org.uk) (joseph@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 19 May 2011 15:27:40 -0000 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QN58V-0003lq-4w; Thu, 19 May 2011 15:27:39 +0000 Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 15:27:00 -0000 From: "Joseph S. Myers" To: Yao Qi cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [_Complex test 2/4] _Complex type in varargs.exp In-Reply-To: <4DD51E40.6080401@codesourcery.com> Message-ID: References: <4DC401D0.1050500@codesourcery.com> <4DC75036.4040806@codesourcery.com> <4DD49DA6.6040407@codesourcery.com> <4DD51E40.6080401@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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: 2011-05/txt/msg00442.txt.bz2 On Thu, 19 May 2011, Yao Qi wrote: > Tests in this case also fail on armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabi and > x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. Shall I have to file yet another two PRs for > armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabi and x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu respectively, > and KFAIL them to different PR separately? At least, I didn't see such > usage elsewhere in gdb testsuite. I think the correct division is one PR per target architecture for all complex types ABI issues, rather than one PR per test failure. That's the only way a target maintainer can sensibly fix their target's problems, test that they are fixed, and close the relevant PR; otherwise you have a catch-all bug that's open for ever without meaningfully reflecting what actually needs to be done to fix the problem. > IMO, KFAIL with target triplet works for the situation that one test > passes on all ports except one or two. However, our test fails on most > ports, different from KFAIL's typical usage. The aim is that soon the bug *is* fixed for all the most commonly used targets - but will likely remain open much longer for many more rarely used targets. -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com