This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch/rfc] Remove all setup_xfail's from testsuite/gdb.mi/
Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > 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.
Well, so far we've got two nays. Why don't Daniel and I shut up,
and wait to see if there are any yays?