This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] testsuite/gdb.c++/ref-types.exp: use runto
- To: fnasser at cygnus dot com (Fernando Nasser)
- Subject: Re: [RFA] testsuite/gdb.c++/ref-types.exp: use runto
- From: "Peter.Schauer" <Peter dot Schauer at regent dot e-technik dot tu-muenchen dot de>
- Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 0:14:36 MET
- Cc: chastain at cygnus dot com, dberlin at redhat dot com, fnasser at redhat dot com, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
If you look at the CVS history of these tests, you will note that not all of
those tests were XFAIL'ed in the past.
gdb-4.17/gcc-2.8.1 handled most of these tests just fine, and they got
broken by the HP snowball, so it's not simply a matter of old-abi.
> Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> >
> > Mmmm, a philosophical dispute.
> >
> > Daniel Berlin writes:
> > > They need to be xfail'd for old-abi, but not for new-abi.
> >
> > I believe that when gdb has a bug which is under its control, that the
> > test suite should issue a FAIL, not an XFAIL.
> >
>
> Yes, but what Dan is trying to say (I guess) is that this is _not_ under GDB's control. I.e., it was not possible for GDB to do the right thing because of insufficient information from the compiler. Is that right Dan?
>
> If that is the case, it is correct to mark those as XFAILs. Something besides GDB -- something in the execution environment or on another piece of the toolchain -- causes this test to fail and there is not that can be done inside GDB, so the "expected fai> lure".
>
> Maybe you guys can come up with a simple quick test to determine if we are dealing with v2 or v3. It would be useful to condition tests.
>
>
> > Here is a gdb log entry for gcc 2.95.2, gdb CVS, Red Hat Linux 7 native,
> > stabs:
> >
> > (gdb) print pAe->f()
> > $1 = 134547192
> > (gdb) XFAIL: gdb.c++/virtfunc.exp: print pAe->f()
> >
> > If gdb said "I'm sorry, but pAe->f() is too complex for me", I would
> > accept that as an XFAIL. But when gdb prints wrong answers, that should
> > be a FAIL.
> >
> > I'm interested in other maintainer's opinions on this because I'm
> > planning to submit patches to change such XFAIL's to FAIL's, so that
> > the test suite can actually report what is broken in C++ support.
> >
> > Michael
>
> --
> Fernando Nasser
> Red Hat - Toronto E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com
> 2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
> Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9
>
>
--
Peter Schauer pes@regent.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de