From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21582 invoked by alias); 5 Feb 2003 21:43:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 21575 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2003 21:43:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2003 21:43:13 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18gZD7-0002vU-00 for ; Wed, 05 Feb 2003 17:44:09 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18gXK8-0007CC-00 for ; Wed, 05 Feb 2003 16:43:16 -0500 Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 21:43:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Clean up gdb.c++ tests for dwarf 1 Message-ID: <20030205214316.GA27592@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <200302052130.h15LUHB10715@duracef.shout.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00113.txt.bz2 On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 04:29:14PM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote: > > Michael Elizabeth Chastain writes: > > gdb HEAD%20030205 has loads of this stuff in the C++ test suite: > > > > setup_xfail_format "DWARF 1" > > > > There are 81 instances of this. > > > > Some test scripts have them, and some don't. I'd like to get rid > > of them and replace them with something more coherent -- or nothing. > > > > I see four choices. > > > > (1) Just remove these calls to setup_xfail_format. If someone runs the > > gdb test suite with DWARF 1, the test suite will do its job and give > > FAIL results for all the C++ tests that do not work with DWARF 1. > > Your rationale here is that, since we don't really know which of these > failures are genuine, can't-be-done-with-Dwarf-1 expected failures, > and which are GDB bugs, you want to dump them all into the "genuine > bug" category and start re-categorizing, using our modern > interpretation of XFAIL and KFAIL? I think his rationale here is, we don't know which of these failures are which, and we don't care... I certainly don't care either. I like (1). -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer