This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFC: gdb.c++/main-falloff.exp (a new KFAIL)
- From: David Carlton <carlton at math dot stanford dot edu>
- To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec at shout dot net>
- Cc: drow at mvista dot com, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: 03 Jan 2003 13:24:06 -0800
- Subject: Re: RFC: gdb.c++/main-falloff.exp (a new KFAIL)
- References: <200301032116.h03LGhq19408@duracef.shout.net>
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 15:16:43 -0600, Michael Elizabeth Chastain <email@example.com> 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.