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/
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
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.
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.
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?
Red Hat - Toronto E-Mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9