This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFC: gdb.c++/main-falloff.exp (a new KFAIL)
- From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec at shout dot net>
- To: drow at mvista dot com, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 10:04:54 -0600
- Subject: Re: RFC: gdb.c++/main-falloff.exp (a new KFAIL)
Hi Daniel!
> First of all, KFAIL is (in my opinion) for things that we have analyzed
> and established to be known bugs _in the tool under test_. That's what
> differentiates them from XFAILs; I thought that was the consensus.
You are right. I am mixing two issues here. I agree with you,
but my code doesn't. :-(
I would like to file a gcc bug on this and then it would be an xfail.
It's only a kfail because I am so conservative about marking bugs
as "gdb bugs" until proven otherwise. In the past we have been
lax about blaming things as xfail prematurely.
> I.E. the "return 0" is outside of the lexical block for main. That's
> not necessarily wrong. We have to decide if it is wrong - whether the
> test case should be updated or a GCC bug report filed. My inclination
> is that it's a GCC bug.
Me too. How about if I file it as such, and then make this an XFAIL?
> GDB is behaving exactly as expected given its inputs; ergo, this is not
> a KFAIL at all.
POW. Ya got me.
> What do you think of:
> gdb_test_multiple "info locals" \
> {pass "(i|j|k) = (101|102|103)\r\n(i|j|k) = (101|102|103)\r\n(i|j|k) = (101|102|103)"
> kfail "gdb/900" "No locals."} \
> "testing locals"
I am open to new syntax. I do prefer gdb_test to send_gdb/gdb_expect.
I never thought of extending the gdb_test idea but it's a good idea.
So if you're cool with me filing a gcc bug report, I can s/kfail/xfail/,
close PR gdb/900 as "not a gdb bug -- see PR gcc/9NNN", and we can
wrangle about gdb_test_multiple.
I will definitely suspend committing this for a while.
Michael C