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

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>]

On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 02:06:05PM -0600, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> My two cents ...
> 
> Daniel J suggests that we keep making improvements:
>   > XFAIL->KFAIL
>   > random XFAIL->analyzed XFAIL
>   > XFAIL->PASS
> 
> The problem is that, in the source code, "setup_xfail" looks the same
> for both our crap legacy XFAIL's and the nice new analyzed xfail's.
> 
> Perhaps a little mechanism like "gdb_mark_external_fail" would help.
> Then "grep xfail" would find only the shrinking pool of old stuff.

I was going to mark individual files, but the concept is the same...
then we can kill the markers when we're done.

> > This I definitely like.  "Cantfix"?
> 
> I propose "external".
> 
> I find "cantfix" to be a bit arrogant and a bit negative.  And it doesn't
> distinguish between "I can't fix this because I don't have the resources"
> versus "I can't fix this because I can show you that binutils is feeding
> gdb incorrect / incomplete information".

I like "external".

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer