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] Remove all setup_xfail's from testsuite/gdb.mi/

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:

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.

That is correct. The last argument of a setup_xfail, if it does not contain '-' (Argh! Don't blame me, it was already there since immemorial times) is the PR number. It can easily be a gdb/NNN bug id. We cannot enforce the syntax, but we can enforce it as a police.

So, to address Michael's concerns, we could open a WONTFIX bug report (is there such category? This is the Bugzilla one) saying that it is a GCC or whatever bug and outside of our control and add the id to the setup_xfail.

Why doing this? A script can go through the KFAILs (for each platform) and, by reading the Gnats database, automatically create a KNOWN BUGS man page section, or a section of a Release Notes document. Using the same principle, it can go through the XFAILs and generate a section of known limitations _on a specific environment_ (the one where the test results were obtained).


P.S.: Does someone know how to programatically access the Gnats database?

Fernando Nasser
Red Hat - Toronto E-Mail:
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9

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