This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [rfa:testsuite} Overhaul sizeof.exp
- From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>
- To: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Cc: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
- Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 18:06:52 +0000
- Subject: Re: [rfa:testsuite} Overhaul sizeof.exp
- Organization: ARM Ltd.
- Reply-to: Richard dot Earnshaw at arm dot com
mec@shout.net said:
> It sounds like we understand the alternatives and everyone's got
> opinions about them.
> [0] Status quo
> [1] FAIL the test
> [2] XFAIL the test
> [3] KFAIL the test
Well, speaking personally, I don't particularly like XFAIL because it
hides failures from me. Since I rarely see a run with zero FAILs the only
thing that is interesting is a diff between this and a previous run, to
tell me if an existing test has started failing, or whether a new test has
been added.
About the only reasonable use of XFAIL that I can think of is when we fail
because there was a bug in an external tool (such as the compiler) which
means we are unable to successfully run the test (but haven't failed so
badly as to get an UNRESOLVED -- we know the outcome we know its wrong,
but we know its because of an external problem). Everything else should
be a FAIL, because its our fault and we *should* fix it.
R.