RFC: Known Failures [Was: RFD: Testsuite cases for inferior function calls]

[Peter.Schauer]

> > No, I meant the standard output of a testsuite run. I can quickly see any
> > FAILs there without grepping etc., and I think it only fair to expose them
> > to any installer of GDB who bothers to run the testsuite.
> 
> That may be a question of taste or opinion.  I definitively don't want to see
> anything more than FAILs on the stdout.  Maybe we can vote on this, or make it
> an option switch.

So why do we see XPASSes then ?

> > There used to be a time when testcases were required for every submitted
> > change.
> > Gathering from recent postings it seems like you might not be allowed to add
> > new testcases if they fail on any conceivable platform :-).
>
> That is not what I said.  We are talking about tests that a known to generally
> fail and to pass only on a few targets (3, I believe) that have been fixed.
> 
> I did not even said about not checking it in, but to xfail them to the targets
> that have not yet been fixed (and for which we have no precise plan about when
> we will be able to do it).

There seems to be a thread mixup here, sorry for the confusion.

I was not referring to my callfuncs proposal (otherwise I would have stated
it explicitly), but to some other discussions in the past.

As to the callfuncs tests, they are not known to generally fail, they
are just not yet tested on other targets (Orjan's target did fail, but that
should be fixed now, thanks to the testcase).
I am just very reluctant to xfail them for every non-tested target, as you had
proposed:

> OK, suppose we xfail it for all targets except the ones you've already verified?
> We still get the other targets tested and it will either show as a XFAIL or a
> XPASS (if we are that lucky).  No FAILs will be added and, with the *known problem*
> comment added we can check it in as a start point for some improvements on this area.
>
> Sounds reasonable?

-- 
Peter Schauer			pes@regent.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de