[Bug testsuite/29778] [gdb/testsuite] Revise untested usage

["vries at gcc dot gnu.org" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29778

--- Comment #5 from Tom de Vries <vries at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Simon Marchi from comment #3)
> > and seeing how like XFAIL it's focused on the environment, I start to wonder
> > if the role of UNTESTED was intended to be that it's to UNSUPPORTED what
> > KFAIL is to XFAIL.
> > 
> > In other words:
> > - xfail: fail due to problem in environment
> > - kfail: fail due to problem in gdb
> > - unsupported: not run due to missing optional feature in environment
> > - untested: not run due to missing optional feature in gdb
> 
> I'm struggling a bit with the difference between unsupported and untested,
> especially because unsupported sounds like a specific case of untested.  And
> except because of what the Dejagnu documentation says, unsupported really
> sounds like it could be used for both "missing feature in environment" and
> "missing feature in gdb".  Using unsupported just for the former one seems
> arbitrary.
>  

I know some struggle with the difference between kfail and xfail and feel it's
arbitrary.  For me the difference is clear: for a kfail you need to record a
gdb PR.  For an xfail, you don't.

Between unsupported and untested, I agree what I proposed here can bee seen as
arbitrary, it's just an attempt to make sense of the available incomplete
information.

All I care about is not having to wonder each time whether to use untested or
unsupported, either by:
- having clear rules when to use them, or
- eliminated the use of one of them by generating an error, or
- simply mapping one onto the other.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.