From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24916 invoked by alias); 28 Feb 2003 15:15:24 -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 24907 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2003 15:15:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 28 Feb 2003 15:15:24 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18oo7d-00064e-00 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:16:33 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18omEL-000605-00 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:15:21 -0500 Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 15:15:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfc] xfailed tests in gdb.c++/classes.exp Message-ID: <20030228151521.GA23038@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <200302280501.h1S51oS26231@duracef.shout.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200302280501.h1S51oS26231@duracef.shout.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00607.txt.bz2 On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 11:01:50PM -0600, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote: > > 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. The consensus is obviously that this output is OK. David, please do add the new pass patterns. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer