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

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>]

> On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 05:22:42PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>
> > I think the patch, regardless of KFAIL, is still technically correct. It 
> > fixes a bug: the XFAILs are all wrong so removing them changes the 
> > testsuite so that the numbers it reports better reflect reality.  It's 
> > just unfortunate that part of the reality is a jump in testsuite 
> > failures.  Remember, the XFAILs were originally added to artifically 
> > deflate the test failure rate.
>
> As you wish.  Michael's already said he just ignores gdb.mi; if it
> picks up this many new failures, probably so will I.
So ..., what will happen when I submit an equivalent patch for one of 
the other directories?

>  I don't agree
> that it's technically correct; the XFAILs were being used for a
> slightly suboptimal meaning since KFAIL wasn't available.  They aren't
> real failures no matter which way I look at it.

The ones I know about were real failures that reflected real bugs.  They 
were XFAILed to supress a bug that wasn't going to be fixed.  Grab an 
old GDB and check the comments that go with the a29k XFAILs.  That is 
very different to XFAILing something because it isn't possible to fix.

> > >  Would it be
> > > hard to file PRs for all the failures you see and mark them KFAIL?
> > I think that would be a step backwards as all it would do is fill the 
> > bug database with reports like ``test failed''.
>
> What do you want in the database then?
An analysis of the bug.

> > At least this does move things forward - it puts the tesuite in a state 
> > where everyone and everyone can incrementally do the marking.
>
> But nobody will...
In one hit, or here and there?  I know I will.  I just won't be spending 
a solid week reviewing all of them.

Andrew