This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch/rfc] Remove all setup_xfail's from testsuite/gdb.mi/
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 12:51:43 -0500
- Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Remove all setup_xfail's from testsuite/gdb.mi/
- References: <200301151744.h0FHi6O27664@duracef.shout.net>
On Wed, Jan 15, 2003 at 11:44:06AM -0600, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> Now the real problem comes to light. 'K' and 'X' are really orthogonal.
> 'K' means that we know about the problem, and 'X' means that it is
> a problem in an external tool, and these two things are separate.
> But we made them an either/or, so we have to choose.
> I'd rather have this become a KFAIL with reference to a gdb PR. Then
> the gdb PR can say that this incorrect behavior happens, but it's not
> gdb's fault. The gdb PR should refer to a gcc PR or other external PR.
> And then we can't close the gdb PR until gcc revives gcc 2.X development
> or gdb drop supports for gcc 2.X.
> We could add another PR state for these kind of PR's, or we could
> just use the 'suspended' state.
> >From the gdb user's point of view, a bug is a bug. A gdb user can do
> the same thing as the test suite and then file a PR: 'gdb fails to
> print 'const' for const types'.
I'm not sure I agree with this. My point of view was that either it's
an expected bug (environment) or it is a "known bug in the tool being
tested". I don't like calling environment bugs KFAILs. Do that, and
we'll just end up with no XFAILs...
Associating a PR with them is a different issue. Just because we
associate a PR doesn't mean we have to use KFAIL.
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer