This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Print KFAIL's in dejagnu summary?
- From: Jim Blandy <jimb at redhat dot com>
- To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>
- Cc: dejagnu at gnu dot org, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com,Fernando Nasser <fnasser at redhat dot com>
- Date: 26 Sep 2003 23:29:33 -0500
- Subject: Re: Print KFAIL's in dejagnu summary?
- References: <3F7361BB.email@example.com>
Andrew Cagney <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> At present KFAILs are supressed from the summary output (the stuff on
> the terminal from "make check"). I'd like to change this so that
> KFAILs, just like FAILs, are included in the summary. A KFAIL, just
> like a FAIL, indicates a bug in the system under test, and hence
> should be included in the summary.
> Having seen this feature in action for a year now, I think it's
> reasonable to conclude that people are ignoring KFAILed tests just
> like they ignored GDB's bogus XFAIL tests that went before.
I think this might be a good thing. They certainly are failures.
I'm usually working in one of two modes:
- I'm evaluating a particular change. Here I do before-and-after
comparisons of the .sum files, to look for regressions; what appears
in the summary output makes no difference to me at all, so the
change you suggest wouldn't affect me.
- I'm stabilizing a target for a release. Here, every failure is of
potential interest to me, and KFAILs are no exception. But I
usually work from the gdb.sum files in this situation too, so again,
it doesn't make much difference.
When you say "I think it's reasonable to conclude that people are
ignoring KFAILed tests", I get this image of someone running a 'make
check', being shocked to see a blip in the output there, and getting
hot and bothered about fixing it. But it's hard for me to imagine
someone actually working in such an impulsive way; bugs take (me) too
long to fix to just dive in when I hadn't planned on it. I'm always
more directed about what I'm going to work on. I do other things for
If other folks are like me, then I don't think the change you suggest
will have much effect on the rate at which bugs are fixed in GDB.
(Not that that was the only point in its favor.)