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: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <chastain at cygnus dot com>
- Subject: Re: Proper test status if gdb test detects a g++ bug?
- From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 12:41:20 -0800
- Cc: gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- References: <200102042014.MAA02254@bosch.cygnus.com>
Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> 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?
To me personally, that sounds wrong. I would have thought that a test
proper could only PASS or FAIL. Decisions that the system is broken
being kept separate vis:
if necessary setup xfail
perform the test
People have talked about ripping out XFAIL and moving that information
to a separate database. If tests start to contain implicit decisions to
XFAIL then that operation is going to be very hard.