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: Fernando Nasser <fnasser at redhat dot com>
- To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec at shout dot net>
- Cc: ac131313 at redhat dot com, drow at mvista dot com,gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2003 09:26:37 -0500
- Subject: Re: [patch/rfc] Remove all setup_xfail's from testsuite/gdb.mi/
- Organization: Red Hat , Inc. - Toronto
- References: <200301162006.h0GK65K18945@duracef.shout.net>
Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:> My two cents ...
You are right, we need some way to distinguish what have been verified and what
has not yet been.
Daniel J suggests that we keep making improvements:
> random XFAIL->analyzed XFAIL
The problem is that, in the source code, "setup_xfail" looks the same
for both our crap legacy XFAIL's and the nice new analyzed xfail's.
Perhaps a little mechanism like "gdb_mark_external_fail" would help.
Then "grep xfail" would find only the shrinking pool of old stuff.
But if we do what Andrew proposes and get rid of all old PR and HP bug number
markings we can make the distinction visually. setup_xfail lines without a bug
number have not yet been verified. There aren't that many that would make it so
hard, and the poorly marked ones related to stabs or old compilers do show up in
your reports very clearly (just diff with a dwarf2 on a new compiler results).
And as the reports point out, there are only 71 that are not that case.
Just one note: there are cases where the XFAIL is produced by a 'xfail' command
inside a '-re' clause.
One variation of your idea:
The case for debugger format and compiler version is so common that I would feel
tempted to have a special function for that. Something like
gdb_compiler_related_xfail <format> <version spec> <target>+ <bug id (external)>
<format> could be "stabs", "dwarf2", "any"
<version spec> not sure. A list? An expression? Suggestions?
<target>+ one or more target specs, as currently (we may even make it optional
<bug id> a bug id, which, of course, will be categorized as "external"
This I definitely like. "Cantfix"?
I propose "external".
I find "cantfix" to be a bit arrogant and a bit negative. And it doesn't
distinguish between "I can't fix this because I don't have the resources"
versus "I can't fix this because I can show you that binutils is feeding
gdb incorrect / incomplete information".
Red Hat - Toronto E-Mail: email@example.com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9