This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] testsuite/gdb.base/callfuncs.*: Add inferior call testcases
- To: Fernando Nasser <fnasser at cygnus dot com>
- Subject: Re: [RFA] testsuite/gdb.base/callfuncs.*: Add inferior call testcases
- From: Michael Snyder <msnyder at redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 13:57:06 -0700
- CC: "Peter.Schauer" <Peter dot Schauer at regent dot e-technik dot tu-muenchen dot de>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot cygnus dot com, Andrew Cagney <cagney at cygnus dot com>
- Organization: Red Hat, Inc.
- References: <200009231034.MAA01447@reisser.regent.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de> <39CF592D.C7CD00AB@cygnus.com>
Fernando Nasser wrote:
>
> "Peter.Schauer" wrote:
> >
> > > OK, suppose we xfail it for all targets except the ones you've already verified?
> > > We still get the other targets tested and it will either show as a XFAIL or a
> > > XPASS (if we are that lucky). No FAILs will be added and, with the *known problem*
> > > comment added we can check it in as a start point for some improvements on this area.
> > >
> > > Sounds reasonable?
> >
> > I beg to differ.
> > XFAILs do not show up in the testsuite output and have a tendency to be
> > `forgotten' (e.g. many of the XFAILs in virtfunc.exp are real regressions from
> > gdb-4.17, making C++ debugging somewhat impossible on larger C++ projects, and
> > have not been fixed for nearly two years).
> >
> > The new testcases uncovered a serious bug on Linux x86 (calling an inferior
> > function which used the FPU clobbered the FPU state of the current process),
> > and a problem with the target Orjan Friberg is working on (which is now solved,
> > due to the new testcases).
> >
> > Any problems that show up on other targets might be serious, and should be
> > clearly visible. If the problem can't be fixed immediately (or if the target
> > maintainer is lazy), we still have the option to xfail it for specific
> > targets.
> >
>
> The XFAILs are forgotten because there are two classes of things mixed up.
> That is why I wanted to create the KFAILs. KFAILs would be used to generate
> a list of features not yet supported and known bugs.
> It was decided, at that time, that we should use XFAILs and add a comment,
> much to my dismay.
Just to add a "me too", I agree with Fernando that XFAIL is overloaded,
to very bad effect. However I think that's orthogonal to whether these
particular tests should be added.
Michael