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

["Peter.Schauer" <Peter dot Schauer at regent dot e-technik dot tu-muenchen dot de>]

> "Peter.Schauer" wrote:
> > 
> > KFAILs would be fine with me, as long as they show up in the testsuite run
> > output.
> > 
> 
> Note that *all* results go to the testsuite run output.  You are referring to the
> summary file, perhaps.

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.

And so I would like to appear the KFAILs there as well, otherwise I fear
that KFAILs will be forgotten just like XFAILs.

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 :-). 

I don't have very strong opinions about FAIL/XFAIl/KFAIL, but I'd really
like to see a clear strategy for testcases, perhaps written down somewhere.

> It is not a release problem.  It is an engineering problem: we want to be able to
> clearly know if a change caused regressions, without having to memorize which is
> the usual level of FAILs for each host-x-target combination.

What is the problem with a diff against a last `good' version of gdb.sum
or the testsuite output ?

Locally I am even diffing a processed version of gdb.log against a known
version, because it uncovers many subtle problems (e.g new GDB warning
messages, missing prompt consumption etc.).

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