From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11361 invoked by alias); 18 Sep 2003 00:48:18 -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 11354 invoked from network); 18 Sep 2003 00:48:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hawaii.kealia.com) (209.3.10.89) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Sep 2003 00:48:17 -0000 Received: by hawaii.kealia.com (Postfix, from userid 2049) id 4C363CB2D; Wed, 17 Sep 2003 17:48:17 -0700 (PDT) To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [testsuite] add gdb.cp/gdb1355.exp References: <200309180000.h8I00rK4012420@duracef.shout.net> From: David Carlton Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 00:48:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <200309180000.h8I00rK4012420@duracef.shout.net> (Michael Elizabeth Chastain's message of "Wed, 17 Sep 2003 20:00:53 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Rational FORTRAN, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-09/txt/msg00386.txt.bz2 On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 20:00:53 -0400, Michael Elizabeth Chastain said: > If you use a version of gcc with this bug, plenty of other > things break, so this test does not add any coverage. > It does add an explicit KFAIL that points to the specific PR. I don't think this matches our use of KFAIL. For one thing, it would be an XFAIL, because it's a GCC bug, not a GDB bug. For another thing, though, the bug in question has been fixed, so we don't expect it to fail: if it does, it should show up as a FAIL. I would leave in the new test, with branches and comments as is, but I would change all the occurrences of kfail to fail. David Carlton carlton@kealia.com