From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id DB1563854579; Fri, 18 Nov 2022 15:39:06 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org DB1563854579 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1668785946; bh=4oZHYDPLwz+yZ+fwibvG0eW1LLstyEqTn9NHoRkq7B0=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=ewIZ0jdqQxKCGgLXAUq3QvtACMeOU+AG6T5XMK+L93fsZdlNp12DTvuUwcTikmAnD LW9zM7qu0CaFwwh1QBYr4xdA5FzwVevsGg0cG356EWL5a69gLhaf7cRh4UDDXBvKD2 i4xS1segQ1tVpbMrhYp0SAhTXS66ZH172UstTWGg= From: "vries at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gdb-prs@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug testsuite/29778] [gdb/testsuite] Revise untested usage Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2022 15:39:06 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gdb X-Bugzilla-Component: testsuite X-Bugzilla-Version: HEAD X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement X-Bugzilla-Who: vries at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at sourceware dot org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D29778 --- Comment #5 from Tom de Vries --- (In reply to Simon Marchi from comment #3) > > and seeing how like XFAIL it's focused on the environment, I start to w= onder > > if the role of UNTESTED was intended to be that it's to UNSUPPORTED what > > KFAIL is to XFAIL. > >=20 > > 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 >=20 > 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. >=20=20 I know some struggle with the difference between kfail and xfail and feel i= t'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. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=