[RFA] testsuite/gdb.c++/ref-types.exp: use runto
Peter.Schauer
Peter.Schauer@regent.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de
Fri Mar 16 15:14:00 GMT 2001
If you look at the CVS history of these tests, you will note that not all of
those tests were XFAIL'ed in the past.
gdb-4.17/gcc-2.8.1 handled most of these tests just fine, and they got
broken by the HP snowball, so it's not simply a matter of old-abi.
> Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> >
> > Mmmm, a philosophical dispute.
> >
> > Daniel Berlin writes:
> > > They need to be xfail'd for old-abi, but not for new-abi.
> >
> > I believe that when gdb has a bug which is under its control, that the
> > test suite should issue a FAIL, not an XFAIL.
> >
>
> Yes, but what Dan is trying to say (I guess) is that this is _not_ under GDB's control. I.e., it was not possible for GDB to do the right thing because of insufficient information from the compiler. Is that right Dan?
>
> If that is the case, it is correct to mark those as XFAILs. Something besides GDB -- something in the execution environment or on another piece of the toolchain -- causes this test to fail and there is not that can be done inside GDB, so the "expected fai> lure".
>
> Maybe you guys can come up with a simple quick test to determine if we are dealing with v2 or v3. It would be useful to condition tests.
>
>
> > Here is a gdb log entry for gcc 2.95.2, gdb CVS, Red Hat Linux 7 native,
> > stabs:
> >
> > (gdb) print pAe->f()
> > $1 = 134547192
> > (gdb) XFAIL: gdb.c++/virtfunc.exp: print pAe->f()
> >
> > If gdb said "I'm sorry, but pAe->f() is too complex for me", I would
> > accept that as an XFAIL. But when gdb prints wrong answers, that should
> > be a FAIL.
> >
> > I'm interested in other maintainer's opinions on this because I'm
> > planning to submit patches to change such XFAIL's to FAIL's, so that
> > the test suite can actually report what is broken in C++ support.
> >
> > Michael
>
> --
> Fernando Nasser
> Red Hat - Toronto E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com
> 2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
> Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9
>
>
--
Peter Schauer pes@regent.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de
More information about the Gdb-patches
mailing list