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: Clean up gdb.c++ tests for dwarf 1

Jim B posits:
> Your rationale here is that, since we don't really know which of these
> failures are genuine, can't-be-done-with-Dwarf-1 expected failures,
> and which are GDB bugs, you want to dump them all into the "genuine
> bug" category and start re-categorizing, using our modern
> interpretation of XFAIL and KFAIL?

You could interpret plan (1) that way.  Consider the scenario where
someone is still testing gdb with DWARF 1.  They are getting a mixture
of FAIL's and XFAIL's now.  After plan (1), they will get a lot more
FAIL's and a lot less XFAIL's.

There is a lot of bit rot and lies in the test suite.  If my task were
to evaluate c++ support with DWARF 1, then I would *start* by assuming
that all the XFAIL's are lying about the "X" part, and I would treat
them the same as FAIL's anyways.  So that corresponds to what you said.

Of course I am hoping that after I dump them all into the 'genuine bug'
category, that they will sit there until DWARF 1 is obsolete and
removed, and no one will ever have to 'start re-categorizing'.
But someone can do that if they need to.

Michael C

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