This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [rfc] xfailed tests in gdb.c++/classes.exp
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 10:15:21 -0500
- Subject: Re: [rfc] xfailed tests in gdb.c++/classes.exp
- References: <200302280501.h1S51oS26231@duracef.shout.net>
On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 11:01:50PM -0600, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> > Sure. But I suspect 2) represents an actual bug. Fixing this is about
> > three lines in c-typeprint.c. Should we or shouldn't we?
> A little late night rambling ...
> It depends on your role.
> In the QA role I've got kind of a black-boxy view. If the test script
> mimics what a user would type, and if I think that most users would be
> happy, then I'm happy.
> In the developer role, any loose edge might be a symptom of a bug. I
> remember when one little test in selftest.exp did not pass and I traced
> it down to memory corruption inside gdb. And we all know that a stitch
> in time saves nine. If you're looking at results that don't match what
> you, as a developer, believe the code should do, that is noteworthy,
> even if Joe User has no issue with it.
> Also, gdb has thousands more problems than we can fix. We have to do
> brutal triage on our TODO lists, every day. And I am personally bad at
> prioritizing. In fact one of my motives for working on gdb is to
> practice better prioritizing in an environment that lets me set my own
The consensus is obviously that this output is OK. David, please do
add the new pass patterns.
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer