From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22259 invoked by alias); 3 Jan 2003 21:24:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 22252 invoked from network); 3 Jan 2003 21:24:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jackfruit.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.38.136) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 3 Jan 2003 21:24:20 -0000 Received: (from carlton@localhost) by jackfruit.Stanford.EDU (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h03LO6v31727; Fri, 3 Jan 2003 13:24:06 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: jackfruit.Stanford.EDU: carlton set sender to carlton@math.stanford.edu using -f To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Cc: drow@mvista.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFC: gdb.c++/main-falloff.exp (a new KFAIL) References: <200301032116.h03LGhq19408@duracef.shout.net> From: David Carlton Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2003 21:24:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <200301032116.h03LGhq19408@duracef.shout.net> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00087.txt.bz2 On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 15:16:43 -0600, Michael Elizabeth Chastain said: > I'm changing my mind about the gdb_test_multiple approach. I'm not > opposed to gdb_test_multiple, but I don't want KFAIL activity to > wait for it. I completely agree with this. It seems to me that, for now, we should just add KFAIL's using either gdb_expect or using setup_kfail+gdb_test (with both being acceptable, depending on the test writer's preferences). If somebody eventually writes a spiffy gdb_test_multiple which unifies both of their virtues, then we can go back and convert those new KFAILs to use that format (along with existing gdb_expects). My message was only meant to brainstorm on the possible design of such a gdb_test_multiple. David Carlton carlton@math.stanford.edu