This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFC: KFAILs [Was: [RFA/mi-testsuite] XFAIL mi*-console.exp]
- From: Fernando Nasser <fnasser at redhat dot com>
- To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec at shout dot net>
- Cc: ac131313 at cygnus dot com, drow at mvista dot com, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com, rob at welcomehome dot org
- Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 15:01:02 -0500
- Subject: Re: RFC: KFAILs [Was: [RFA/mi-testsuite] XFAIL mi*-console.exp]
- Organization: Red Hat Canada
- References: <200204051909.g35J99P32716@duracef.shout.net>
Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
>
> Actually I prefer the pair "kpass/kfail" to "xpass/kfail" and "xpass/xfail"!
> "xpass/kfail" looks weird and lets in some ambiguity. Can you implement it
> as "kpass/kfail"?
>
> fna> I can change things to accept the second form like setup_xfail does
> fna> and just make sure that one with no '-' in it was found (the bug id)
> fna> and error out if none was found. Just let me know if you prefer
> fna> this instead of the positional first argument (I am now having
> fna> second thoughts about that).
>
> I don't have a strong preference. (It sounds like you don't either).
>
Yes, I don't mind one way or another. But I am more inclined to keep
things as similar as the ones that exist for xfail to avoid confusion.
So, I will only make the bug identification mandatory and keep the
rest the same as for setup_xfail (unless someone has a good argument
for us to do differently -- I could not think of a good one).
--
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat Canada Ltd. E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9