Proper test status if gdb test detects a g++ bug?

[Andrew Cagney]

Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> 
> Andrew Cagney writes:
> > That is more or less the definition of XFAIL.  You'll need to figure out
> > a way of only marking that test as XFAIL for that specific compiler.
> 
> The test script doesn't really know what version the compiler is.
> It probes for specific strings in response to its tests, not an overall
> version string.  That's how it distinguishes between:
> 
>   "foo&" versus "foo &"
>   "char*" versus "char *"
>   "unsigned" versus "unsigned int"
>   "" versus "void"
> 
> In the hairyfunc tests, I can PASS on one specific string, XFAIL on
> another specific string, and FAIL on everything else.  Is that acceptable?

To me personally, that sounds wrong.  I would have thought that a test
proper could only PASS or FAIL.  Decisions that the system is broken
being kept separate vis:

	if necessary setup xfail
	perform the test

People have talked about ripping out XFAIL and moving that information
to a separate database.  If tests start to contain implicit decisions to
XFAIL then that operation is going to be very hard.

enjoy,
	Andrew