From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19124 invoked by alias); 28 Feb 2003 05:01:53 -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 19109 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2003 05:01:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 28 Feb 2003 05:01:51 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h1S51oS26231; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 23:01:50 -0600 Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 05:01:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200302280501.h1S51oS26231@duracef.shout.net> To: drow@mvista.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfc] xfailed tests in gdb.c++/classes.exp X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00605.txt.bz2 > Sure. But I suspect 2) represents an actual bug. Fixing this is about > three lines in c-typeprint.c. Should we or shouldn't we? A little late night rambling ... It depends on your role. In the QA role I've got kind of a black-boxy view. If the test script mimics what a user would type, and if I think that most users would be happy, then I'm happy. In the developer role, any loose edge might be a symptom of a bug. I remember when one little test in selftest.exp did not pass and I traced it down to memory corruption inside gdb. And we all know that a stitch in time saves nine. If you're looking at results that don't match what you, as a developer, believe the code should do, that is noteworthy, even if Joe User has no issue with it. Also, gdb has thousands more problems than we can fix. We have to do brutal triage on our TODO lists, every day. And I am personally bad at prioritizing. In fact one of my motives for working on gdb is to practice better prioritizing in an environment that lets me set my own goals. Michael C