This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [rfa:testsuite} Overhaul sizeof.exp
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec at shout dot net>
- Cc: fnasser at redhat dot com, ac131313 at cygnus dot com, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 13:07:17 -0500
- Subject: Re: [rfa:testsuite} Overhaul sizeof.exp
- References: <200202201749.g1KHnlv04009@duracef.shout.net>
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 11:49:47AM -0600, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> It sounds like we understand the alternatives and everyone's got opinions
> about them.
>  Status quo
>  FAIL the test
>  XFAIL the test
>  KFAIL the test
> I'm concerned that for each alternative, someone will find a flaw, and
> therefore we'll stick with  and keep rejecting useful tests.
> Fernando and Daniel and Andrew, I'd like to hold your feet to the fire:
> Can you please rank these in priority order and indicate how many of the
> high priority ones are acceptable.
> Also there may very well be a  that I haven't heard of or thought of.
> My rank is  >  >  > . , , and  are acceptable to me.
>  is not.
 is best for me. I disagreed with Fernando's claim that we are using
XFAIL the way DejaGNU defines it; I do not disagree that we need more
granularity.  is barely tolerable.  and  are not.
As far as I'm concerned, the ideal path would be:
- Add KFAIL support.
- Add new failing tests that we can fix in GDB as KFAIL
- Change appropriate existing XFAILs to KFAILs, and document
BOTH XFAILS AND KFAILS!
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer