Re: [RFA] testsuite/gdb.base/callfuncs.*: Add inferior call testcases

[Michael Snyder <msnyder at redhat dot com>]

Fernando Nasser wrote:
> 
> "Peter.Schauer" wrote:
> >
> > > OK, suppose we xfail it for all targets except the ones you've already verified?
> > > We still get the other targets tested and it will either show as a XFAIL or a
> > > XPASS (if we are that lucky).  No FAILs will be added and, with the *known problem*
> > > comment added we can check it in as a start point for some improvements on this area.
> > >
> > > Sounds reasonable?
> >
> > I beg to differ.
> > XFAILs do not show up in the testsuite output and have a tendency to be
> > `forgotten' (e.g. many of the XFAILs in virtfunc.exp are real regressions from
> > gdb-4.17, making C++ debugging somewhat impossible on larger C++ projects, and
> > have not been fixed for nearly two years).
> >
> > The new testcases uncovered a serious bug on Linux x86 (calling an inferior
> > function which used the FPU clobbered the FPU state of the current process),
> > and a problem with the target Orjan Friberg is working on (which is now solved,
> > due to the new testcases).
> >
> > Any problems that show up on other targets might be serious, and should be
> > clearly visible. If the problem can't be fixed immediately (or if the target
> > maintainer is lazy), we still have the option to xfail it for specific
> > targets.
> >
> 
> The XFAILs are forgotten because there are two classes of things mixed up.
> That is why I wanted to create the KFAILs.  KFAILs would be used to generate
> a list of features not yet supported and known bugs.
> It was decided, at that time, that we should use XFAILs and add a comment,
> much to my dismay.

Just to add a "me too", I agree with Fernando that XFAIL is overloaded, 
to very bad effect.  However I think that's orthogonal to whether these
particular tests should be added.

Michael