From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30659 invoked by alias); 27 Sep 2003 04:33:21 -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 30652 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2003 04:33:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO zenia.home) (12.223.225.216) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Sep 2003 04:33:21 -0000 Received: by zenia.home (Postfix, from userid 5433) id 614B120766; Fri, 26 Sep 2003 23:29:33 -0500 (EST) To: Andrew Cagney Cc: dejagnu@gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com, Fernando Nasser Subject: Re: Print KFAIL's in dejagnu summary? References: <3F7361BB.1000706@redhat.com> From: Jim Blandy Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 10:34:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <3F7361BB.1000706@redhat.com> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-09/txt/msg00335.txt.bz2 Andrew Cagney writes: > At present KFAILs are supressed from the summary output (the stuff on > the terminal from "make check"). I'd like to change this so that > KFAILs, just like FAILs, are included in the summary. A KFAIL, just > like a FAIL, indicates a bug in the system under test, and hence > should be included in the summary. > > Having seen this feature in action for a year now, I think it's > reasonable to conclude that people are ignoring KFAILed tests just > like they ignored GDB's bogus XFAIL tests that went before. I think this might be a good thing. They certainly are failures. I'm usually working in one of two modes: - I'm evaluating a particular change. Here I do before-and-after comparisons of the .sum files, to look for regressions; what appears in the summary output makes no difference to me at all, so the change you suggest wouldn't affect me. - I'm stabilizing a target for a release. Here, every failure is of potential interest to me, and KFAILs are no exception. But I usually work from the gdb.sum files in this situation too, so again, it doesn't make much difference. When you say "I think it's reasonable to conclude that people are ignoring KFAILed tests", I get this image of someone running a 'make check', being shocked to see a blip in the output there, and getting hot and bothered about fixing it. But it's hard for me to imagine someone actually working in such an impulsive way; bugs take (me) too long to fix to just dive in when I hadn't planned on it. I'm always more directed about what I'm going to work on. I do other things for fun. If other folks are like me, then I don't think the change you suggest will have much effect on the rate at which bugs are fixed in GDB. (Not that that was the only point in its favor.)