Re: [RFA/mi-testsuite] XFAIL mi*-console.exp

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>]

On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 04:49:54PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >OK, so it isn't an XFAIL.  I don't think FAIL is really appropriate
> >either; tests which test a not-yet-implemented feature (and one that I
> >think is a bad idea, for native targets, to be honest) don't add any
> >information by failing.  UNSUPPORTED perhaps?  Or just not running the
> >test in native setups, for now?
> Er, actually, XFAIL might be closer to the truth than UNSUPPORTED. 
> Although neither indicate UNIMPLEMENTED.

I'm just going to sit on this patch until we can decide what the result
should be.  I've posted both XFAIL and UNSUPPORTED versions for your
viewing pleasure...

> 
> Andrew
> 
> >Aside, fernando and I had a brief discussion about xfail vs unsupported and 
> >came up with the following concrete example.
> >
> >Attach/detach:
> >
> >FreeBSD has a bug in its detach, since at present it doesn't work but did 
> >in the past, and will again in the next release it will work, it gets 
> >marked as ``xfail'.  Next release it will mysteriously ``xpass'' and can be 
> >adjusted accordingly.
> >
> >Cygwin, due to limitations in the underlying OS, simply wasn't able to 
> >support detach, it should be marked as ``unsupported''.  (As a foot note, 
> >recent versions of the underlying OS, did fix this limitation).
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer