This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

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

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]