This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch] kfail gdb.c++/annota2.exp annotate-quit
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 11:00:57 -0500
- Subject: Re: [patch] kfail gdb.c++/annota2.exp annotate-quit
- References: <200212190547.gBJ5lnN24237@duracef.shout.net>
On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 11:47:49PM -0600, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> My testbed gives me 34 KFAIL's on 34 configurations, just fine.
> This is native i686-pc-linux-gnu, gcc v2 and v3, dwarf-2 and stabs+.
>
> I use stock FSF dejagnu 1.4.3. I also built dejagnu from the
> sourcware cvs "dejagnu" module and did a test run with that.
> That works fine too.
>
> I have appended a gdb.sum file for anyone who is curious.
> The KFAIL line looks like this:
>
> KFAIL: gdb.c++/annota2.exp: annotate-quit (PRMS: c++/544)
>
> We can't do anything about the "PRMS:" part, that comes from dejagnu.
>
> I have an objection to the name "c++/544". It is way too easy for
> this name to get quoted out of context (the context being that it is
> a gdb bug in the gdb database). I think this will cause confusion.
> I would like to see "gdb/544" here.
>
> Sure, right *now* while we are discussing the issue, everyone knows
> that "c++/544" means a gdb bug in the gdb PR database. Wait six weeks
> and then quote some people a gdb.sum report that says "c++/482" in it
> and see if anyone jumps to the incorrect conclusion that c++/482 means
> a bug in the C++ compiler.
I want the C++ part in there. How about "PRMS: [gdb] c++/544"?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer