This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFC: gdb.c++/main-falloff.exp (a new KFAIL)
- From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec at shout dot net>
- To: carlton at math dot stanford dot edu, drow at mvista dot com
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2003 15:16:43 -0600
- Subject: Re: RFC: gdb.c++/main-falloff.exp (a new KFAIL)
Daniel J wrote:
> Secondly, I really dislike this form. Adding gdb_expect's all over is
> bad, because gdb_test has a much more thorough list of things to expect
> indicating various errors. Better would be to solve this problem with
> a little TCL. What do you think of:
> gdb_test_multiple "info locals" \
> {pass "(i|j|k) = (101|102|103)\r\n(i|j|k) = (101|102|103)\r\n(i|j|k) = (101|102|103)"
> kfail "gdb/900" "No locals."} \
> "testing locals"
David C replies:
> It would be nice if the branches could execute arbitrary code, like
> gdb_expect does, though, so that the xfails/kfails could be conditional
> on the operating system, debug format, or whatever.
I'm changing my mind about the gdb_test_multiple approach. I'm not
opposed to gdb_test_multiple, but I don't want KFAIL activity to
wait for it.
My original goals, back around April 2002, were:
(1) provide a way to add new tests which show bugs in gdb.
For example, look at PR gdb/186, "gdb have problems with C++ casting".
http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view&database=gdb&pr=186
I have test code for this. It's not even a new test case; it is
more test code for gdb.c++/casts.exp (which does not cover classes
that have virtual functions).
My understanding is that it's forbidden to add new tests which FAIL,
but acceptable to add new tests which KFAIL.
I would like to commit my new tests and have them KFAIL with reference
to PR gdb/186. We talked about problems like this 9 months ago and
KFAIL is the solution that Fernando picked.
(2) connect existing FAILs to the PR database.
We have dozens of tests that already FAIL due to known reasons.
I think everybody wants to start marking those with KFAIL.
I'm getting dismayed by the new turn of events where KFAIL deployment
is sprouting a dependency on new syntax in lib/gdb.exp which needs
to be designed and implemented.
I would rather do these things in parallel. There are already plenty
of tests which use send_gdb/gdb_expect. If someone wants to implement a
better facility than send_gdb/gdb_expect, go for it, I will support such
an effort. As soon as it's available then I will convert gdb.c++/*.exp
to use it. But I no longer want to hold off on KFAIL activity to wait
for gdb_test_multiple.
Michael C