From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3381 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2003 19:16:57 -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 3374 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2003 19:16:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jackfruit.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.38.136) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Jan 2003 19:16:57 -0000 Received: (from carlton@localhost) by jackfruit.Stanford.EDU (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0HJGm013292; Fri, 17 Jan 2003 11:16:48 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: jackfruit.Stanford.EDU: carlton set sender to carlton@math.stanford.edu using -f To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Cc: fnasser@redhat.com, ac131313@redhat.com, drow@mvista.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Remove all setup_xfail's from testsuite/gdb.mi/ References: <200301171900.h0HJ03A04642@duracef.shout.net> From: David Carlton Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 19:16:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <200301171900.h0HJ03A04642@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/msg00647.txt.bz2 On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 13:00:03 -0600, Michael Elizabeth Chastain said: > Good morning xfail crew, > There are a lot of xfail's in the corpus, but the number is shrinking > steadily with time. > % cd testsuite > % grep -r setup_xfail gdb.* | wc > 5.2.1 649 > 5.3 577 > HEAD%20030115 517 > After sleeping on the problem, I like Daniel J's path for a while. > Just keep banging on the test suite and reducing that "517" number with > no more machinery and no Andrew C Big Rip. Personally, I basically prefer that approach, too. I'm gradually going through the current non-{PASS,KFAIL} results that I see on my test runs in gdb.c++, and investigating them; I'm not distinguishing between XFAIL and FAIL (and XPASS, for that matter) when doing so. Once I'm done with that, I'll move on to the xfail's that I don't see; I've noticed that there are an awful lot of DWARF 1 ones, which I assume actually are legit. (And I also want to bring in bugs from the database into the testsuite, and add some new bugs that I've seen in my own C++ debugging, but that's a separate issue.) On the other hand, while by now it's clear that Andrew would meet considerable resistance in a wholescale ripping out of XFAIL's in gdb.c++, what Andrew was actually proposing (if memory serves me well) is starting by ripping them out of gdb.mi. Andrew's one of the maintainers there; if he thinks that ripping them out would make the results of test runs in gdb.mi more accurate, then doing so sounds entirely reasonable to me. Elena's the other maintainer of the mi tests; I plan to keep her quite busy enough reviewing my various forthcoming symtab patches that she won't want have time to audit the mi tests, either. I'm not sure that I see the urgency of ripping them out of the testsuite as a whole, given that there is actual concrete progress being made in cleaning up the testsuite right now. David Carlton carlton@math.stanford.edu