From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20262 invoked by alias); 25 Jun 2015 13:38:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 19258 invoked by uid 89); 25 Jun 2015 13:38:13 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 13:38:12 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 29B572D4504 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 13:38:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t5PDc9C0022871 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2015 09:38:10 -0400 Message-ID: <558C0440.8070507@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 13:38:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb: tests: mark async unsupported dynamically References: <1434770234-24916-1-git-send-email-vapier@gentoo.org> <558A93BA.4030205@redhat.com> <20150625112117.GR17734@vapier> In-Reply-To: <20150625112117.GR17734@vapier> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-06/txt/msg00548.txt.bz2 On 06/25/2015 12:21 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On 24 Jun 2015 12:25, Pedro Alves wrote: >> We should also return something that the caller checks to bail the >> rest of the file. Otherwise, as soon as we add something to the >> test that expects that e.g., "print foo" returns some value after the >> previous async commands worked, that test will fail on sync targets. > > returning an error on unsupported makes sense. but if we fail in general, don't > want to run all tests and such still ? In general I agree we should consider that. E.g., gdb.base/interrupt-noterm.exp skips the rest of the tests only if async isn't supported, not on failure. But that one open codes the async-supported check. Here, it didn't seem worth the trouble to have separate record codes, though I'm certainly fine with it. (E.g., -1/0/1.) The reason it didn't feel like worth the trouble is that if you fail the first "next&", then the rest of the tests will no longer make sense anyway, as they will depend on having nexted correctly to the right line. So the very likely result is a cascade of FAIL timeouts. Hence a single FAIL seems good enough. But as said, if you want to add the distinction, super fine with me. Might be a good idea if we move the test_background to lib/gdb.exp and use it in other tests (like gdb.base/interrupt-noterm.exp) anyway. Thanks, Pedro Alves