This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFC: KFAIL DejaGnu patch
- From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec at shout dot net>
- To: drow at mvista dot com
- Cc: ac131313 at cygnus dot com, eliz at is dot elta dot co dot il, fnasser at redhat dot com, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com, rob at welcomehome dot org
- Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 13:56:06 -0500
- Subject: Re: RFC: KFAIL DejaGnu patch
Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
> That would only be useful if we always marked all tests - which we're
> awful about. continue {2} might be any number of different continue
> statements in the test.
Let me explain in more detail.
Right now there are tests with output like this:
gdb.base/foo.exp: PASS: continue
gdb.base/foo.exp: PASS: continue
gdb.base/foo.exp: PASS: continue
gdb.base/foo.exp: PASS: continue
I have to do something to make the test names unique. So I behave
as if the input is this:
gdb.base/foo.exp: PASS: continue
gdb.base/foo.exp: PASS: continue {2}
gdb.base/foo.exp: PASS: continue {3}
gdb.base/foo.exp: PASS: continue {4}
This is flawed, because if someone adds or subtracts sections from
the test, the sequence numbers will get re-numbered, and I lose the
ability to compare across many runs. As you point out, "continue {2}"
might be in different places depending on conditional execution and
so on.
But I have to do *something*. If I just do "$hash{$name} = $result",
then the totals don't even add up correctly.
Michael C