Re: RFC: gdb.c++/main-falloff.exp (a new KFAIL)

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>]

On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 10:04:54AM -0600, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> 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.

Sounds good to me.  Give me about an hour first; I'm looking at the GCC
bug.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer