Re: [patch] KFAIL gdb/1025

[David Carlton <carlton@math.stanford.edu>]

On Tue, 4 Feb 2003 09:44:15 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> said:

> I'm really not comfortable with this use of KFAIL.  My hope was that
> we would analyze particular failures before KFAILing them off to
> oblivion.  I spent time fixing these exact six failures a bit under
> a month ago; if it isn't working for your setup I want more
> information.

This I disagree with.  Next time, I'll wait a day before KFAILing it,
if you like.  But, from my point of view, what I have done is the
exact opposite of sending them off to oblivion: before I KFAILed them,
the bug was only visible in my test suite and in some of Michael's
test runs, whereas now it's in the much more visible location of an
open bug in the bug database.

If I uncover a new bug, that's one thing: I haven't rushed to file a
bug report+KFAIL for the overloading bug that I turned up last Friday,
because I'm happy to wait for Daniel to look at that patch.  But this
is a failure that I've seen in the test suite since I started working
on GDB and that also shows up on Michael's tables (to some extent).

If, of course, it is a bug.  To answer questions that have been raised
elsewhere:

* I'm using the binutils that comes with Red Hat 7.3; rpm -q reports
  it as binutils-2.11.93.0.2-11.  So it's old.  I'll upgrade that and
  see what happens.  (And then do what to the test?  Turn it from
  KFAIL into XFAIL, I suppose?)

* I gave the wrong GDB version: I was using CVS GDB from yesterday.  I
  saw the FAILs using 'make check' on yesterday's CVS, but then I
  investigated it using whatever GDB happened to be in /usr/local/bin
  (which, if you're curious, is the current dictionary branch GDB, and
  I haven't sync'd with mainline since whatever old date I listed).  I
  try to remember to use CVS GDB when investigating bugs, so I get the
  date entered right, but sometimes I forget.

And I have some other questions/comments:

* If it's all due to binutils, why do Michael's tables still show some
  non-PASS results with GCC 2.95.3/DWARF-2?

* It's not the same as PR 872.  That's about overload resolution; this
  bug doesn't seem to be related to overload resolution.

Anyways, I'll upgrade my binutils when I have some free time (probably
this afternoon) and see how that affects matters.

David Carlton
carlton@math.stanford.edu