Re: [rfc] xfailed tests in gdb.c++/classes.exp

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>]

On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 11:01:50PM -0600, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> > Sure.  But I suspect 2) represents an actual bug.  Fixing this is about
> > three lines in c-typeprint.c.  Should we or shouldn't we?
> 
> A little late night rambling ...
> 
> It depends on your role.
> 
> In the QA role I've got kind of a black-boxy view.  If the test script
> mimics what a user would type, and if I think that most users would be
> happy, then I'm happy.
> 
> In the developer role, any loose edge might be a symptom of a bug.  I
> remember when one little test in selftest.exp did not pass and I traced
> it down to memory corruption inside gdb.  And we all know that a stitch
> in time saves nine.  If you're looking at results that don't match what
> you, as a developer, believe the code should do, that is noteworthy,
> even if Joe User has no issue with it.
> 
> Also, gdb has thousands more problems than we can fix.  We have to do
> brutal triage on our TODO lists, every day.  And I am personally bad at
> prioritizing.  In fact one of my motives for working on gdb is to
> practice better prioritizing in an environment that lets me set my own
> goals.

The consensus is obviously that this output is OK.  David, please do
add the new pass patterns.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer