This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch/rfc] KFAIL gdb.c++/annota2.exp watch triggered on a.x
- From: David Carlton <carlton at math dot stanford dot edu>
- To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com, Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec at shout dot net>
- Date: 03 Jan 2003 13:48:25 -0800
- Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] KFAIL gdb.c++/annota2.exp watch triggered on a.x
- References: <ro1ptrdlxvk.fsf@jackfruit.Stanford.EDU><20030103213920.GA21687@nevyn.them.org>
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 16:39:20 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz <email@example.com> said:
> May I recommend at the least "i?86"?
That makes sense.
> Also, I really don't see the point of the kpass's; before doing
> this, you need to establish if those patterns are acceptable
> results; if so, they are passes, period.
Sorry, I should have explained my reasoning there. My theory behind
that is that they're a reminder to people who fix bugs that they
should update the test suite. If somebody fixes this bug a year from
now, doesn't know that there's a test case for the bug, and doesn't
pay attention to gdb.sum (just to the naked 'make check'), then that
person might easily forget to update the test suite. (Especially
since the test case in question is in gdb.c++/annota2.exp, whereas the
bug doesn't involve either C++ or annotations!)
So it seems to me that, if the failure isn't reliable, then we should
leave the success case as a PASS, but if the failure is reliable, then
KPASS is slightly better.