From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1895 invoked by alias); 5 Feb 2003 22:06:14 -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 1888 invoked from network); 5 Feb 2003 22:06:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jackfruit.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.38.136) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 5 Feb 2003 22:06:14 -0000 Received: (from carlton@localhost) by jackfruit.Stanford.EDU (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h15LlNw02393; Wed, 5 Feb 2003 13:47:23 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: jackfruit.Stanford.EDU: carlton set sender to carlton@math.stanford.edu using -f To: Jim Blandy Cc: Michael Elizabeth Chastain , fnasser@redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com, Daniel Jacobowitz Subject: Re: Clean up gdb.c++ tests for dwarf 1 References: <200302052130.h15LUHB10715@duracef.shout.net> From: David Carlton Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 22:06:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00114.txt.bz2 On 05 Feb 2003 16:29:14 -0500, Jim Blandy said: > Michael Elizabeth Chastain writes: >> (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 won't speak for Michael, but my rationale is that, based on discussions over the last few weeks and based on the patch to gdb.texinfo that I committed on Monday, we currently don't support C++ on DWARF 1. The testsuite is cluttered with XFAILs that we have no reason to believe are either correct or comprehensive; the two obvious choices, then, are to either throw them out entirely or to XFAIL everything, which are Michael's options 1 and 2. If at some point in the future somebody decides to start working on improving C++ DWARF 1 support in GDB (and, presumably, in GCC), then that person can take the time to sort through what works, what doesn't work because of failures in GDB, what doesn't work because of failures in GCC, and what doesn't work because of limitations in the debug format. I doubt anybody will be motivated to do so; getting rid of the current XFAIL's won't hurt such an effort, however. David Carlton carlton@math.stanford.edu