Re: RFA: Testsuite patches...

[Daniel Berlin <dberlin at redhat dot com>]

Kevin Buettner <kevinb@cygnus.com> writes:

> On Aug 2,  9:55pm, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> > I think GDB should be accepting tests (provided that they are
> > rigiously examined) even when they add failures - just as long as
> > the failures examine real bugs.  I think this also better reflects
> > what really goes on.
> 
> I agree.
> 
> If we make "no new failures" the criteria for whether a test is added
> to the testsuite or not, then it seems to me that we'll end up adding
> very few new tests just because it's so difficult for any one person
> to test on all affected targets.  (And it really doesn't work to
> post a patch and expect everyone affected to try it.)
> 
> It makes sense to me to spread the workload by adding a test and then
> expecting the various maintainers to make sure that the test passes
> (or gets suitably tweaked) for their targets.
> 
> Kevin

This seems like a better idea.

In fact, I propose the following, or something like it:

We accept all new tests people are willing to contribute, whether GDB
passes them or not, on any platform (assuming the test itself is
showing a problem with GDB, or something that should eventually work
in GDB, like say, virtual function calling).

We have a seperate directory in the testsuite for tests that nobody
has any idea whether it will pass on all platforms or not, or whether
GDB can do that yet or not.

That way, even if you XFAIL'd the test (so people didn't bitch about
the failures), at least I could look in that test results for that directory when I wanted to know what should be
working, but isn't, etc.

Or maybe i'm just babbling.
--Dan