From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16658 invoked by alias); 19 Dec 2002 18:27:12 -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 16630 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2002 18:27:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jackfruit.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.38.136) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 19 Dec 2002 18:27:10 -0000 Received: (from carlton@localhost) by jackfruit.Stanford.EDU (8.11.6/8.11.6) id gBJIQv908879; Thu, 19 Dec 2002 10:26:57 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: jackfruit.Stanford.EDU: carlton set sender to carlton@math.stanford.edu using -f To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch] kfail gdb.c++/annota2.exp annotate-quit References: <200212190547.gBJ5lnN24237@duracef.shout.net> From: David Carlton Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 11:01:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <200212190547.gBJ5lnN24237@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: 2002-12/txt/msg00554.txt.bz2 On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 23:47:49 -0600, Michael Elizabeth Chastain said: > The KFAIL line looks like this: > KFAIL: gdb.c++/annota2.exp: annotate-quit (PRMS: c++/544) > We can't do anything about the "PRMS:" part, that comes from dejagnu. > I have an objection to the name "c++/544". It is way too easy for > this name to get quoted out of context (the context being that it is > a gdb bug in the gdb database). I think this will cause confusion. > I would like to see "gdb/544" here. > Sure, right *now* while we are discussing the issue, everyone knows > that "c++/544" means a gdb bug in the gdb PR database. Wait six > weeks and then quote some people a gdb.sum report that says > "c++/482" in it and see if anyone jumps to the incorrect conclusion > that c++/482 means a bug in the C++ compiler. I certainly don't think that it should say "c++/544", simply because it's not a C++ bug: I'm planning to change the category in GNATS today. (But to what? tui?) I have mixed feelings about whether or not it should say "gdb/" or "/". I guess I don't find your reasoning convincing: it's part of the GDB test suite, so I would expect people to think that a bug "c++/" refers to a bug in GDB's C++ support. (Which is normally correct, though I think not in this particular case.) On the other hand, I'm not yet convinced that the categories are completely stable, and it's silly to either spend time changing the test suite whenever a bug gets refiled or having the test suite and GNATS not agree on the categories in question. And listing bugs as "gdb/" gets around that problem nicely. On the other hand, if somebody has gone to the effort of KFAILing a test, then chances are that the bug in question has been analyzed enough to be filed correctly, so maybe the categories are stable after all. So I'm torn. That's one vote for "waffle" from me, and for "gdb" from Michael; anybody else? David Carlton carlton@math.stanford.edu