Re: [PATCH] introduce AT_SKIP_IF and AT_FAIL_IF

[Ralf Wildenhues]

* Eric Blake wrote on Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 04:10:22PM CEST:
> Paolo Bonzini <bonzini <at> gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > > Part of me thinks it might be nice to change AT_XFAIL_IF to use similar
> > > semantics, but then the other part worries about backwards compatibility
> > 
> > I think it's not trivial either to change it.  I doubt it makes a 
> > difference in
> > practice, there are not many Autotest users and even fewer AT_XFAIL_IF
> > users.
> 
> Then let's leave AT_XFAIL_IF alone until (unless?) someone complains about it 
> being different in practice.

I think I can remember a couple of occasions where this particular
semantics of AT_XFAIL_IF was either unexpected or undesired; at
least within the Libtool testsuite it has caused some churn before.

However, I also think that changing the semantics is a problematic
thing to do, as it very likely breaks compatibility.  I am not sure
if it is better to document the current semantics, and maybe provide
another macro that updates xfail status at the point it is invoked.

Cheers,
Ralf