Re: RFC: gdb.c++/main-falloff.exp (a new KFAIL)

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>]

On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 03:16:43PM -0600, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> Daniel J wrote:
> > Secondly, I really dislike this form.  Adding gdb_expect's all over is
> > bad, because gdb_test has a much more thorough list of things to expect
> > indicating various errors.  Better would be to solve this problem with
> > a little TCL.  What do you think of:
> >   gdb_test_multiple "info locals" \
> > 	{pass "(i|j|k) = (101|102|103)\r\n(i|j|k) = (101|102|103)\r\n(i|j|k) = (101|102|103)"
> > 	 kfail "gdb/900" "No locals."} \
> > 	"testing locals"
> 
> David C replies:
> > It would be nice if the branches could execute arbitrary code, like
> > gdb_expect does, though, so that the xfails/kfails could be conditional
> > on the operating system, debug format, or whatever.
> 
> I'm changing my mind about the gdb_test_multiple approach.  I'm not
> opposed to gdb_test_multiple, but I don't want KFAIL activity to
> wait for it.
> 
> My original goals, back around April 2002, were:
> 
> (1) provide a way to add new tests which show bugs in gdb.
> 
> For example, look at PR gdb/186, "gdb have problems with C++ casting".
> 
>   http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view&database=gdb&pr=186
> 
> I have test code for this.  It's not even a new test case; it is
> more test code for gdb.c++/casts.exp (which does not cover classes
> that have virtual functions).
> 
> My understanding is that it's forbidden to add new tests which FAIL,
> but acceptable to add new tests which KFAIL.
> 
> I would like to commit my new tests and have them KFAIL with reference
> to PR gdb/186.  We talked about problems like this 9 months ago and
> KFAIL is the solution that Fernando picked.
> 
> (2) connect existing FAILs to the PR database.
> 
> We have dozens of tests that already FAIL due to known reasons.
> I think everybody wants to start marking those with KFAIL.
> 
> I'm getting dismayed by the new turn of events where KFAIL deployment
> is sprouting a dependency on new syntax in lib/gdb.exp which needs
> to be designed and implemented.
> 
> I would rather do these things in parallel.  There are already plenty
> of tests which use send_gdb/gdb_expect.  If someone wants to implement a
> better facility than send_gdb/gdb_expect, go for it, I will support such
> an effort.  As soon as it's available then I will convert gdb.c++/*.exp
> to use it.  But I no longer want to hold off on KFAIL activity to wait
> for gdb_test_multiple.

TCL is not as fierce as everyone seems to think it is!  Really. 
gdb_test_multiple will only take me an hour tops to put together; I
just wanted to get at least a little feedback on the syntax first.

If it's bugging you that bad I'll do it or something similar tomorrow morning.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer