Re: [Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>] Re: RFA: test GDB's ability to kill threaded programs that die messily

[Jim Blandy <jimb@redhat.com>]

Andrew Cagney <ac131313@ges.redhat.com> writes:

> >> > Didn't we decide that if there's an unfixed bug, you file a bug report,
> >> > but you don't check in a test that will fail?
> >
> >> I've marked up the tests with commented-out setup_kfail forms that
> >> refer to the bug number, and included the bug number in the test
> >> name.  I thought that's how we'd decided to handle these.
> > OK, your recollection is echoed by Andrew.
> > I'm happy now.  Please check it in.
> 
> Hmm, thinking about it, the message proper, until setup_kfail is
> added, should include text like ``(known bug gdb/NNNN)'' so people
> don't go chasing after known problems.

It's not the chasing down we want to avoid --- we want to encourage
that.  :) Rather, it's that we want to make clear that this bug is not
a regression.  

I've changed the message from:

  GDB exits after multi-threaded program exits messily (gdb/568)

to:

  GDB exits after multi-threaded program exits messily (not a regression; gdb/568)