This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [rfa:testsuite} Overhaul sizeof.exp
On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 11:15:44AM -0500, Fernando Nasser wrote:
> Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > The XFAIL policy is different to GDB. GDB interprets XFAILs to mean not
> > supported due to something outside of GDB's control. Not this is a bug
> > but we're not fixing it at present.
> Gdb follows the Dejagnu intended meaning for XFAILs.
Really? I think you mean that GCC does. From the DejaGNU manual:
A test failed, but it was expected to fail. This result indicates
no change in a known bug. If a test fails because the operating
system where the test runs lacks some facility required by the
test, the outcome is `UNSUPPORTED' instead.
XFAILS are intended to represent known bugs, and we should be using
UNSUPPORTED more heavily.
> We've noticed that we need something else for "Known bugs"
> long ago. I suggested that we should create the KFAILs for that,
> which would be documented with a bug database reference.
> I still think we should do that.
I agree on the documenting part at least.
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer