This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFA: Testsuite patches...
- To: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at redhat dot com>
- Subject: Re: RFA: Testsuite patches...
- From: Jimmy Guo <guo at cup dot hp dot com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2000 11:20:25 -0700 (PDT)
- Cc: Kevin Buettner <kevinb at cygnus dot com>,Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>,GDB Discussion <gdb at sourceware dot cygnus dot com>,GDB Patches Mail List <gdb-patches at sourceware dot cygnus dot com>
Just like to point out that with my latest patch to dejagnu relaxing
PRMS id pattern (which I will commit today), you can do something like:
setup_xfail "*-*-*" NOT_YET_SUPPORTED
This is the test point level control we can play with. For brand-new
tests awaiting check-out on supported platforms, maybe a simple naming
convention with a starting _ would be effective enough.
In principle I agree we should relax the test acceptance criteria a bit,
but at the same time we need to consider the impact of high level of
FAILs to the ongoing development effort (at HP we have no FAILs in our
top-of-trunk and all XFAILs are explained by defect IDs, or something
like 'NOT_YET_SUPPORTED'). And I'm just suggesting a couple of ways to
let people interpret test outcomes selectively.
A new temporary staging test tree might be useful but I'm not sure how
that could complicate HP's multipass testing scheme where we selectively
run tests with different compilers / options based on test directories
-- unless you replicate the top level test tree under this staging tree.
- Jimmy
>Kevin Buettner <kevinb@cygnus.com> writes:
>
>In fact, I propose the following, or something like it:
>
>We accept all new tests people are willing to contribute, whether GDB
>passes them or not, on any platform (assuming the test itself is
>showing a problem with GDB, or something that should eventually work
>in GDB, like say, virtual function calling).
>
>We have a seperate directory in the testsuite for tests that nobody
>has any idea whether it will pass on all platforms or not, or whether
>GDB can do that yet or not.
>
>That way, even if you XFAIL'd the test (so people didn't bitch about
>the failures), at least I could look in that test results for that directory when I wanted to know what should be
>working, but isn't, etc.