Re: [patch/rfc] Remove all setup_xfail's from testsuite/gdb.mi/

[Fernando Nasser <fnasser at redhat dot com>]

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > > From the gdb user's point of view, a bug is a bug.  A gdb user can do
> > the same thing as the test suite and then file a PR: 'gdb fails to
> > print 'const' for const types'.
>
> I'm not sure I agree with this.  My point of view was that either it's
> an expected bug (environment) or it is a "known bug in the tool being
> tested".  I don't like calling environment bugs KFAILs.  Do that, and
> we'll just end up with no XFAILs...
>
> Associating a PR with them is a different issue.  Just because we
> associate a PR doesn't mean we have to use KFAIL.
That is correct.  The last argument of a setup_xfail, if it does not contain '-' 
(Argh!  Don't blame me, it was already there since immemorial times) is the PR 
number.  It can easily be a gdb/NNN bug id.  We cannot enforce the syntax, but 
we can enforce it as a police.

So, to address Michael's concerns, we could open a WONTFIX bug report (is there 
such category?  This is the Bugzilla one) saying that it is a GCC or whatever 
bug and outside of our control and add the id to the setup_xfail.

Why doing this?  A script can go through the KFAILs (for each platform) and, by 
reading the Gnats database, automatically create a KNOWN BUGS man page section, 
or a section of a Release Notes document.  Using the same principle, it can go 
through the XFAILs and generate a section of known limitations _on a specific 
environment_ (the one where the test results were obtained).

Regards,
Fernando

P.S.: Does someone know how to programatically access the Gnats database?


--
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat - Toronto                       E-Mail:  fnasser@redhat.com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario   M4P 2C9