This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Proper test status if gdb test detects a g++ bug?
- To: ac131313 at cygnus dot com, chastain at cygnus dot com
- Subject: Re: Proper test status if gdb test detects a g++ bug?
- From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <chastain at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Sun, 4 Feb 2001 12:14:22 -0800
- Cc: gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
Andrew Cagney writes:
> That is more or less the definition of XFAIL. You'll need to figure out
> a way of only marking that test as XFAIL for that specific compiler.
The test script doesn't really know what version the compiler is.
It probes for specific strings in response to its tests, not an overall
version string. That's how it distinguishes between:
"foo&" versus "foo &"
"char*" versus "char *"
"unsigned" versus "unsigned int"
"" versus "void"
In the hairyfunc tests, I can PASS on one specific string, XFAIL on
another specific string, and FAIL on everything else. Is that acceptable?
Now I have to understand Alexander's mesage about what the right strings
actually *are*. Ow, these hairy types are giving me a headache.
Michael Elizabeth Chastain
"love without fear"