public inbox for gdb-patches@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [pushed] Invert test in gdb.ada/ptype_tagged_param.exp
@ 2023-01-27 17:24 Tom Tromey
  2023-01-27 20:15 ` Pedro Alves
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Tom Tromey @ 2023-01-27 17:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gdb-patches; +Cc: Tom Tromey

Simon pointed out that the kfail check in
gdb.ada/ptype_tagged_param.exp is inverted.  See:

https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2023-January/196296.html

This patch fixes the problem.
---
 gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/ptype_tagged_param.exp | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/ptype_tagged_param.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/ptype_tagged_param.exp
index eaf61ddde79..759b10f9b6a 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/ptype_tagged_param.exp
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/ptype_tagged_param.exp
@@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ gdb_test_multiple "ptype s" "ptype s" {
 	pass $gdb_test_name
     }
     -re -wrap $nodebug {
-	if {$has_runtime_debug_info} {
+	if {!$has_runtime_debug_info} {
 	    kfail "no debug info" $gdb_test_name
 	} else {
 	    fail $gdb_test_name
-- 
2.38.1


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: [pushed] Invert test in gdb.ada/ptype_tagged_param.exp
  2023-01-27 17:24 [pushed] Invert test in gdb.ada/ptype_tagged_param.exp Tom Tromey
@ 2023-01-27 20:15 ` Pedro Alves
  2023-01-27 21:01   ` Tom Tromey
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Pedro Alves @ 2023-01-27 20:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Tom Tromey, gdb-patches

On 2023-01-27 5:24 p.m., Tom Tromey via Gdb-patches wrote:
> Simon pointed out that the kfail check in
> gdb.ada/ptype_tagged_param.exp is inverted.  See:
> 
> https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2023-January/196296.html
> 
> This patch fixes the problem.
> ---
>  gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/ptype_tagged_param.exp | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/ptype_tagged_param.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/ptype_tagged_param.exp
> index eaf61ddde79..759b10f9b6a 100644
> --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/ptype_tagged_param.exp
> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/ptype_tagged_param.exp
> @@ -48,7 +48,7 @@ gdb_test_multiple "ptype s" "ptype s" {
>  	pass $gdb_test_name
>      }
>      -re -wrap $nodebug {
> -	if {$has_runtime_debug_info} {
> +	if {!$has_runtime_debug_info} {
>  	    kfail "no debug info" $gdb_test_name

Why is this a kfail instead of an xfail?  Is there really a GDB bug here?

>  	} else {
>  	    fail $gdb_test_name
> 


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: [pushed] Invert test in gdb.ada/ptype_tagged_param.exp
  2023-01-27 20:15 ` Pedro Alves
@ 2023-01-27 21:01   ` Tom Tromey
  2023-01-27 21:11     ` Pedro Alves
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Tom Tromey @ 2023-01-27 21:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Pedro Alves; +Cc: Tom Tromey, gdb-patches

>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net> writes:

>> kfail "no debug info" $gdb_test_name

Pedro> Why is this a kfail instead of an xfail?  Is there really a GDB bug here?

It's just my perennial inability to distinguish the two.  There's no gdb
bug, this seems to be a compiler issue.  If changing it to xfail is
correct, let me know and I will do it.  And endeavor to remember that
kfail is for gdb bugs.

Tom

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: [pushed] Invert test in gdb.ada/ptype_tagged_param.exp
  2023-01-27 21:01   ` Tom Tromey
@ 2023-01-27 21:11     ` Pedro Alves
  2023-01-30 15:03       ` Tom Tromey
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Pedro Alves @ 2023-01-27 21:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Tom Tromey; +Cc: gdb-patches

On 2023-01-27 9:01 p.m., Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net> writes:
> 
>>> kfail "no debug info" $gdb_test_name
> 
> Pedro> Why is this a kfail instead of an xfail?  Is there really a GDB bug here?
> 
> It's just my perennial inability to distinguish the two.  There's no gdb
> bug, this seems to be a compiler issue.  If changing it to xfail is
> correct, let me know and I will do it.  

:-)

Yes, kfail is correct.

> And endeavor to remember that kfail is for gdb bugs.

Here's how I memorize it:

 xfail - e(X)ternal issue
 kfail - (K)nown bug

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: [pushed] Invert test in gdb.ada/ptype_tagged_param.exp
  2023-01-27 21:11     ` Pedro Alves
@ 2023-01-30 15:03       ` Tom Tromey
  2023-01-30 15:22         ` Pedro Alves
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Tom Tromey @ 2023-01-30 15:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Pedro Alves; +Cc: Tom Tromey, gdb-patches

>>>> kfail "no debug info" $gdb_test_name
>> 
Pedro> Why is this a kfail instead of an xfail?  Is there really a GDB bug here?
>> 
>> It's just my perennial inability to distinguish the two.  There's no gdb
>> bug, this seems to be a compiler issue.  If changing it to xfail is
>> correct, let me know and I will do it.  

Pedro> :-)

Pedro> Yes, kfail is correct.

Confusing!  But I think just a typo.
I'm going to send a patch to change it.

Tom

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

* Re: [pushed] Invert test in gdb.ada/ptype_tagged_param.exp
  2023-01-30 15:03       ` Tom Tromey
@ 2023-01-30 15:22         ` Pedro Alves
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Pedro Alves @ 2023-01-30 15:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Tom Tromey; +Cc: gdb-patches



On 2023-01-30 3:03 p.m., Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>> kfail "no debug info" $gdb_test_name
>>>
> Pedro> Why is this a kfail instead of an xfail?  Is there really a GDB bug here?
>>>
>>> It's just my perennial inability to distinguish the two.  There's no gdb
>>> bug, this seems to be a compiler issue.  If changing it to xfail is
>>> correct, let me know and I will do it.  
> 
> Pedro> :-)
> 
> Pedro> Yes, kfail is correct.
> 
> Confusing!  But I think just a typo.

Sorry!  Yes, unfortunate typo.

> I'm going to send a patch to change it.

Thank you.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2023-01-30 15:22 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-01-27 17:24 [pushed] Invert test in gdb.ada/ptype_tagged_param.exp Tom Tromey
2023-01-27 20:15 ` Pedro Alves
2023-01-27 21:01   ` Tom Tromey
2023-01-27 21:11     ` Pedro Alves
2023-01-30 15:03       ` Tom Tromey
2023-01-30 15:22         ` Pedro Alves

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).