Re: [_Complex test 2/4] _Complex type in varargs.exp

[Pedro Alves <pedro at codesourcery dot com>]

I completely agree.

On Thursday 19 May 2011 16:27:39, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 19 May 2011, Yao Qi wrote:
> 
> > Tests in this case also fail on armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabi and
> > x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.  Shall I have to file yet another two PRs for
> > armv7l-unknown-linux-gnueabi and x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu respectively,
> > and KFAIL them to different PR separately?  At least, I didn't see such
> > usage elsewhere in gdb testsuite.
> 
> I think the correct division is one PR per target architecture for all 
> complex types ABI issues, rather than one PR per test failure.  That's the 
> only way a target maintainer can sensibly fix their target's problems, 
> test that they are fixed, and close the relevant PR; otherwise you have a 
> catch-all bug that's open for ever without meaningfully reflecting what 
> actually needs to be done to fix the problem.
> 
> > IMO, KFAIL with target triplet works for the situation that one test
> > passes on all ports except one or two.  However, our test fails on most
> > ports, different from KFAIL's typical usage.
> 
> The aim is that soon the bug *is* fixed for all the most commonly used 
> targets - but will likely remain open much longer for many more rarely 
> used targets.

-- 
Pedro Alves