From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9329 invoked by alias); 5 Apr 2008 18:52:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 9320 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Apr 2008 18:52:20 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 05 Apr 2008 18:52:00 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E9C6983D0; Sat, 5 Apr 2008 18:51:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4867C983C5; Sat, 5 Apr 2008 18:51:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JiDUa-0003az-OH; Sat, 05 Apr 2008 14:51:56 -0400 Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 00:58:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Vladimir Prus Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: XFAIL vs. KFAIL Message-ID: <20080405185156.GA13805@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Vladimir Prus , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <200804051952.05563.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <20080405164927.GB16109@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-04/txt/msg00054.txt.bz2 On Sat, Apr 05, 2008 at 08:55:55PM +0400, Vladimir Prus wrote: > Hmm, it appears that at least MI testsuite routinely uses XFAIL for what is > a GDB issue/limitation. KFAIL is relatively new. What I mean by that is it's about five years old, but the MI testsuite is older. Most of the XFAILs in the testsuite are bogus at this point. > 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. No, that's exactly what XFAIL isn't for. We use XFAIL for problems that we can't fix, like known bugs in versions of GCC or Linux or HP-UX. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery