From: Simon Marchi <simark@simark.ca>
To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@embecosm.com>
Cc: Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de>,
Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com>,
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [OB PATCH] gdb/testsuite: Wrap `param_integer_error' in gdb.guile/scm-parameter.exp
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2022 08:57:00 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <34e35222-43f8-058c-ead0-6baa4823cee4@simark.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.2210261710250.19931@tpp.orcam.me.uk>
On 10/29/22 09:56, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> Wrap an overlong line in the definition of `param_integer_error' in
> gdb.guile/scm-parameter.exp. No functional change.
> ---
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2022, Simon Marchi wrote:
>
>>>>> FTR I'm still looking into it and like you I have hesitated to just paper
>>>>> the issue over by allowing both outputs without first understanding what
>>>>> is really going on here. I cannot rule out a distribution-specific patch
>>>>> causing a discrepancy here, but I feel like tracking it down.
>>>>>
>>>>> NB guile 2.0.13 here, reporting as:
>>>>>
>>>>> guile (GNU Guile) 2.0.13
>>>>> Packaged by Debian (2.0.13-deb+1-5.4)
>>>>
>>>> According to that version number, it looks like Ubuntu 20.04?
>>>>
>>>> https://packages.ubuntu.com/focal/guile-2.0
>>>>
>>>> I tried building on Ubuntu 20.04 against guile-2.0, and I see the same
>>>> result as you. And when I try guile2.0 on Arch Linux (this package
>>>> [1]), I also see the same result as you. So I must have tested it wrong
>>>> previously.
>>>>
>>>> You can dig further if you want, but I'd be fine just accepting both
>>>> outputs and saying that guile-2.0 outputs the additional ERROR: while
>>>> subsequent versions do not.
>>>>
>>>
>>> FWIW, I did the same here in commit 6bbe1a929c6 ("[gdb/testsuite] Fix gdb.guile/scm-breakpoint.exp with guile 3.0").
>>
>> Thanks, then I just went ahead and pushed this:
>
> Thanks, though why such a rush to fix a benign test failure while the
> review took months in the first place?
The fix seemed relatively obvious, given we already had one instance of
this.
> FWIW I have been struggling to get multiple versions of Guile compiled
> and installed locally (easier) and then GDB built against each of them
> (tougher). As it turns out our documentation is misleading. We have:
>
> `--with-guile[=GUILE]'
> Build GDB with GNU Guile scripting support. (Done by default if
> libguile is present and found at configure time.) If your host
> does not have Guile installed, you can find it at
> `https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/'. The optional argument
> GUILE can be a version number, which will cause `configure' to
> try to use that version of Guile; or the file name of a
> `pkg-config' executable, which will be queried to find the
> information needed to compile and link against Guile.
>
> (and similarly in `./configure --help'), so one could have thought
> `--with-guile=2.0' will work. Well, not. You need to specify both the
> name and the version, e.g.: `--with-guile=guile-2.0', which I find kind of
> awkward: why would one want to have a Guile package under a name that is
> not "guile"? I think documentation is sensible and it's implementation
> that ought to be fixed.
Ack.
>
> But that is not enough. Still I got:
>
> checking whether to use guile... guile-2.0
> checking for pkg-config... /usr/bin/pkg-config
> checking for usable guile from /usr/bin/pkg-config... checking for scm_set_automatic_finalization_enabled... no
> configure: error: in `.../gdb':
> configure: error: linking guile version guile-2.0 test program failed
> See `config.log' for more details
> make[1]: *** [Makefile:12496: configure-gdb] Error 1
>
> This is because I have built local Guile as static libraries only and
> dependencies are not pulled with the (incorrect) `pkg-config' invocation
> we have in our configury.
>
> I got these issues sorted now and will be posting fixes soon. With these
> in place I have figured out that the message changed between Guile 2.0 and
> 2.2.
Thanks.
> Last but not least here's a fix I committed as obvious to correct an
> overlong line you have introduced with your change. While we do have an
> exemption for TCL code, there's no need to make use of it here and these
> long lines hit clarity of code badly. I have verified this test case to
> still pass after my change.
This is subjective. For expected output patterns, I prefer to format it
as one expected line per source line. But how you formatted it is fine
with me as well.
Simon
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-10-31 12:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-10-24 16:43 [PATCH] gdb/testsuite: fix gdb.guile/scm-parameter.exp "wrong type argument" test pattern Simon Marchi
2022-10-24 23:22 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2022-10-25 1:08 ` Simon Marchi
2022-10-26 7:15 ` Tom de Vries
2022-10-26 15:31 ` Simon Marchi
2022-10-29 13:56 ` [OB PATCH] gdb/testsuite: Wrap `param_integer_error' in gdb.guile/scm-parameter.exp Maciej W. Rozycki
2022-10-31 12:57 ` Simon Marchi [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=34e35222-43f8-058c-ead0-6baa4823cee4@simark.ca \
--to=simark@simark.ca \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=macro@embecosm.com \
--cc=simon.marchi@efficios.com \
--cc=tdevries@suse.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).