From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pg1-x534.google.com (mail-pg1-x534.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::534]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17C243858414 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 14:12:47 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 17C243858414 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=adacore.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=adacore.com Received: by mail-pg1-x534.google.com with SMTP id f129so2770257pgc.1 for ; Wed, 08 Sep 2021 07:12:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=adacore.com; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=2NDKS7ANIIZNZc+wPCUy52veZLXVS0qjD0faIFbcnUI=; b=BTouOc0TlbWGKy4lEWpNelI+klk2M3JHy81ARgNIar/avfsZ9SiYCNDsS+m0cVT6XD NNU2j0PMiKeznCETEXBIvVi9ZjFfT+XiJNUhpzsGKyBSvRdaBneuAlcYdAfoC3bsl56V Hg3RLsn4SVxm4ZhbsfcoBP0XKQGfm0uTbJGcZFOU2CLRwfi0IJCuKCMWvgCZd6JPBkHh g/qdWaVDFNO1Ys2vYH4V4Ct4r+lXZAiLsrodAU9lLBDKsHuLpua7PnI+RAUKi5Fhag85 fdG9zbs1iOGSc3sQgxZq2kLAIpfaLypQ/wrYpj13Q7FjpW/y40uR8pD0hCFfg8Mjacnk Mu3g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=2NDKS7ANIIZNZc+wPCUy52veZLXVS0qjD0faIFbcnUI=; b=PugW7nLecEPypGT7G6OGadvpWEOYswyvPmuGngolzuofm3nCrMcVTvbxOHIZhgTrbg 3xRfkDKGp3xVz+3ms3KIE9lZG5F/BCvuZTHpSftCDNR4Vn26WR5f7uSffW5Nb8CDzuhX r4THxkE17o/IM3j+IctlHcHvD54YCR2s4Thuk916+9IDzrsRsIEpKnKZC63CP4f0vtnL mKBTe8MbBPbmZZ+oDcGAaY/kHFG9vKvwJVZTIVec8Lr4NtuRh7XtW3tkrgZUeR4QgZuM 0XT1HESuTjp3z4lFwPdY89zgLBRls2TzTF3IoVuOOZftJOM8litgf2HKe7wZaZhEM9gK iOvA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533Lny7DtqUcZ4lOilA+6Heo4OB8Zhtu0POKZr6HE4sgC6+ZQpzc kH4Y4ANpl1MDgp8jBZJxfpPk X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw2cF9dgq2iYe6BraIry9nOEgSejmphomWRWtxAn+3BEH70rq7gQcim0EEeC/L2mmXTSVCArA== X-Received: by 2002:a65:5686:: with SMTP id v6mr3899912pgs.174.1631110366247; Wed, 08 Sep 2021 07:12:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from takamaka.home ([184.69.131.86]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f6sm2486231pjo.0.2021.09.08.07.12.45 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 08 Sep 2021 07:12:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by takamaka.home (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 672978340E; Wed, 8 Sep 2021 07:12:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2021 07:12:44 -0700 From: Joel Brobecker To: Tom de Vries Cc: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Tom Tromey , Joel Brobecker Subject: Re: [PATCH][gdb/testsuite] Handle unrecognized command line option in gdb_compile_test Message-ID: <20210908141244.GF9184@adacore.com> References: <20210908112058.GA15665@delia> <20210908122232.GE9184@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2021 14:12:48 -0000 > [ To reiterate my earlier point, it's counter-pattern to generate a FAIL > for something that's not a problem in the tool-under-test. So much > counter-pattern that I had to resist the reflex to commit this as obvious. ] > > Indeed, there could be an error in the testcase. Also, there could be > no error in the test-case. > > In the former case, having a FAIL instead of UNSUPPORTED could increase > the change of noticing this, agreed. In the latter case, having a FAIL > instead of UNSUPPORTED when testing an older compiler, is an annoyance > which drowns out FAILs that do need attention. > > So, I'm not saying that noticing test-case errors causing compilation > problem is not worthwhile. But I'm saying that turning the compilation > errors into FAILs is the wrong solution. I see what you mean. I don't really have a strong opinion on this. Speaking for myself, I tend to blindly accept UNSUPPORTED results, so I am unlikely to notice incorrect ones, which suggests that, for me at least, using UNSUPPORTED is no better. But then again, the way I have being doing testing in the past is by "diff-ing" the testsuite report before and after my change -- so it's not like I would notice a FAIL better ;-). So it's also be no worse (again, just speaking for myself, as YMMV in this case). -- Joel