Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2002 at 05:22:42PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > I think the patch, regardless of KFAIL, is still technically correct. It
> > fixes a bug: the XFAILs are all wrong so removing them changes the
> > testsuite so that the numbers it reports better reflect reality. It's
> > just unfortunate that part of the reality is a jump in testsuite
> > failures. Remember, the XFAILs were originally added to artifically
> > deflate the test failure rate.
>
> As you wish. Michael's already said he just ignores gdb.mi; if it
> picks up this many new failures, probably so will I. I don't agree
> that it's technically correct; the XFAILs were being used for a
> slightly suboptimal meaning since KFAIL wasn't available. They aren't
> real failures no matter which way I look at it.
>
> > > Would it be
> > > hard to file PRs for all the failures you see and mark them KFAIL?
> >
> > I think that would be a step backwards as all it would do is fill the
> > bug database with reports like ``test failed''.
>
> What do you want in the database then?
>
> > At least this does move things forward - it puts the tesuite in a state
> > where everyone and everyone can incrementally do the marking.
>
> But nobody will...
Removing the XFAILS without replacing them with KFAILS is not fixing a bug.
|
