Re: GDB `cannotfix' pr state, require PR with xfail `moving forward'.

[David Carlton <carlton at math dot stanford dot edu>]

On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 14:26:20 -0500, Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> said:

>> There is currently a long thread (Remove all setup_xfail...)'s on
>> gdb-patches@.  Several proposals, I think, can already be
>> identified at this point in the discussion.
>> - yank the existing xfail PR markings (but not the actual xfails)
>> (they apply to old internal Red Hat and HP bug databases and hence
>> are meaningless).

> Still stands.

That certainly makes sense.

>> - `moving forward' all new xfails, and all modifications to
>>   existing xfail's should include a bug report (this way, new
>>   analyzed vs old unanalized xfail's can easily be differentiated).

> Still stands.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "moving forward", but if you
mean that all new xfails should have a bug report associated with
them, I think I agree with that.

Should all xfail bug reports be with reference to GDB's database, or
are references to external databases allowed?  I kind of like the
former (though, presumably, the bug report in GDB's database might
well reference a bug in an external database).

> GDB has a new category `external'.  External bugs can either be
> `suspended' (I guess that implies that the bug is waiting on the
> external code to be fixed), or `closed' the external problem has been
> fixed.

The only categorization glitch that I'm worried about is: what if
there are external issues that can't be fixed?  (E.g. limitations in a
certain debug format.)  I suppose Michael Chastain's answer there
would be to not run the test at all in that situation.

David Carlton
carlton@math.stanford.edu