From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-31579-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 11973 invoked by alias); 7 Apr 2008 19:01:08 -0000
Received: (qmail 11960 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Apr 2008 19:01:06 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from bluesmobile.specifix.com (HELO bluesmobile.specifix.com) (216.129.118.140)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 07 Apr 2008 19:00:37 +0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (bluesmobile.specifix.com [216.129.118.140]) 	by bluesmobile.specifix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C44E23BFA3; 	Mon,  7 Apr 2008 12:00:35 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: XFAIL vs. KFAIL
From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@specifix.com>
To: Vladimir Prus <ghost@cs.msu.su>
Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
In-Reply-To: <ft8aup$9l4$1@ger.gmane.org>
References: <200804051952.05563.vladimir@codesourcery.com> 	 <20080405164927.GB16109@adacore.com>  <ft8aup$9l4$1@ger.gmane.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 19:13:00 -0000
Message-Id: <1207594835.31772.325.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.3 (2.10.3-7.fc7)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2008-04/txt/msg00061.txt.bz2

On Sat, 2008-04-05 at 20:55 +0400, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> Joel Brobecker wrote:
> 
> >> can somebody explain the difference between XFAILing and KFAILing a
> >> test in the GDB testsuite? I've looked at DejaGNU manual, I haven't
> >> found the answer.
> > 
> > KFAIL is when we know of a failure caused by a bug in GDB.
> > 
> > XFAIL is when a problem outside of GDB's control is causing the test
> > to fail. For instance, a kernel issue, or some wrong debugging info
> > generated by the compiler, etc.
> 
> Hmm, it appears that at least MI testsuite routinely uses XFAIL for what is
> a GDB issue/limitation.

Hey, you're welcome to judiciously update them!   ;-)


> Is the distinction really useful? Both seem to be a mechanism to "hide"
> failures that are known to be immediately fixeable, and exact description
> of the problem belongs to a comment, anyway.

We added KFAIL because the distinction seemed to be useful.
It tells us that this is something we ought to fix some day, 
as opposed to something we have little or no control over.