From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7253 invoked by alias); 3 Oct 2003 15:52:14 -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 7245 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2003 15:52:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO darkstar.welcomehome.org) (192.203.188.2) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 3 Oct 2003 15:52:11 -0000 Received: (from rob@localhost) by darkstar.welcomehome.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h93Flge18308; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 09:47:42 -0600 Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 15:52:00 -0000 From: Rob Savoye To: Andrew Cagney Cc: dejagnu@gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com, Fernando Nasser Subject: Re: Print KFAIL's in dejagnu summary? Message-ID: <20031003094742.L12938@welcomehome.org> References: <3F7361BB.1000706@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <3F7361BB.1000706@redhat.com>; from Andrew Cagney on Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 05:44:27PM -0400 X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00070.txt.bz2 On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 05:44:27PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > PS: Some [non] history. Neither Fernando nor I can figure out how/why > the current behavior came to be. Our best guess is that there was some > flip-flopping (the lists suggest this) and the current behavior was > chosen because it happened to be that way in the last version of the > patch. Enjoy! I think you're right. It's the way it is, cause that's the way it is... I think KFAILs should go in the summary. I've never really liked the idea of either XFAIL or KFAIL, but understand others find these useful. I worry that once setup as a expected failure, they'll get lost, and never fixed. So KFAIL should be in the summary to beat developers over the head with them so they eventually get fixed and removed. btw - I'm still waiting for KFAIL documentation... :-) - rob -