This is the mail archive of the 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: [patch/rfc] KFAIL gdb.c++/annota2.exp watch triggered on a.x

On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 02:14:25PM -0800, David Carlton wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 16:51:34 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz <> said:
> > How do you envision them updating the testsuite?  Certainly not by
> > removing the KFAIL's pattern; that defeats the point of having a
> > regression test.
> That's actually exactly how I expect them to update the testsuite
> (though they might want to keep the pattern around in a comment
> somewhere, or even leave the pattern intact but replace the kfail by
> fail plus a comment).  If a bug is claimed to be fixed but isn't
> actually fixed, then that bug isn't a known failure any more, so it
> should be FAILed until the PR is reopened.
> Consider this scenario: we have a bug, with a test for it; that test
> has a PASS pattern (either because people don't like KPASS or because
> the bug is intermittent) and a KFAIL pattern.

> Removing the test entirely would the point of having a regression
> test.  But removing patterns that handle casses that we don't expect
> to occur should make the test more effective rather than less
> effective: if we get surprising output from GDB, we want that to be
> flagged as prominently as possible.
> At least, that's my reasoning.

OK; you're definitely right.  How about a compromise: we agree not to
remove kfail patterns in the testsuite, but instead replace them with
specific fail patterns and a commented out reference to the failure.
That makes life much simpler.

I still don't see what the point of the KPASS's is.

Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

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