Re: [patch/rfc] KFAIL gdb.c++/annota2.exp watch triggered on a.x

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

On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 17:30:31 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> said:

> How about a compromise: we agree not to remove kfail patterns in the
> testsuite, but instead replace them with specific fail patterns and
> a commented out reference to the failure.  That makes life much
> simpler.

That sounds to me like the best of both worlds: we get the output that
I want, while making it as easy as possible to stick the KFAILs back
in the test suite if the same bug crops up again.

> I still don't see what the point of the KPASS's is.

Honestly, there isn't much of a point to them.  They serve as a
reminder to get rid of KFAILs once you've fixed a bug (because KPASSes
will show up in the output of 'runtest' or 'make check'), and they
might be useful if you're interested in tracking down exactly under
what conditions a bug manifests itself.  But I don't feel strongly
about either of those issues; if nobody likes KPASS but me, then I
have no objection to using plain old PASS instead.

David Carlton
carlton@math.stanford.edu