This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Print KFAIL's in dejagnu summary?
- From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>
- To: David Carlton <carlton at kealia dot com>
- Cc: dejagnu at gnu dot org, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com,Fernando Nasser <fnasser at redhat dot com>
- Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 10:24:16 -0400
- Subject: Re: Print KFAIL's in dejagnu summary?
- References: <3F7361BB.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 17:44:27 -0400, Andrew Cagney <email@example.com> said:
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.
I have a mild preference for the current behavior. Mostly I use the
summary output to get a feel for whether or not a change of mine has
obviously gone wrong; the noisier the summary output is, the harder it
is to use it this way. Of course, I always search the entire gdb.sum
for regressions, just to make sure, so it won't make a big practical
difference to me one way or another.
The numbers at the bottom should tell you that:
- no errors
- no unexpected passes
- no unknown failures.
unfortunatly, the only truely robust way is to compare the .sum files.