This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: RFC: gdb.c++/main-falloff.exp (a new KFAIL)


On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 15:16:43 -0600, Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec@shout.net> said:

> 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.

I completely agree with this.  It seems to me that, for now, we should
just add KFAIL's using either gdb_expect or using setup_kfail+gdb_test
(with both being acceptable, depending on the test writer's
preferences).  If somebody eventually writes a spiffy
gdb_test_multiple which unifies both of their virtues, then we can go
back and convert those new KFAILs to use that format (along with
existing gdb_expects).  My message was only meant to brainstorm on the
possible design of such a gdb_test_multiple.

David Carlton
carlton@math.stanford.edu


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]