From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 214F13854169 for ; Sun, 2 Oct 2022 17:06:42 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 214F13854169 Received: from mail-wm1-f70.google.com (mail-wm1-f70.google.com [209.85.128.70]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id us-mta-122-rfCrs_59O3G9NWXLeZ-npg-1; Sun, 02 Oct 2022 13:06:40 -0400 X-MC-Unique: rfCrs_59O3G9NWXLeZ-npg-1 Received: by mail-wm1-f70.google.com with SMTP id ay21-20020a05600c1e1500b003b45fd14b53so4502770wmb.1 for ; Sun, 02 Oct 2022 10:06:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=mime-version:message-id:date:references:in-reply-to:subject:to:from :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=Oblf+pXKN5Tx9eiKz8zhEd9Ym97va91fy3g/Cm61J0o=; b=r9PyXB1USRSDjDIyTXfoZfk1+5AywXqwvEVqMJozAQB8R6aDt7WMG9+/czwNRJAlI5 vDZ/cC2uudqN3HGA0v3PicyTm+3CKiaazMamVX/Zi5aryTAqBwr2m8JWFx7UXwxV0IXc xt9NSrlIN8a/Pn0+glyO41nhzx/FfJjpOBlQLldnXBIie2eZAxuzADOnJsST4IbOiMBE V0ocaAOn9odNtKmAz6qu28OUc/NkuS7W/ZoWkAq9G8vtMF939awccTgAcZTPgA6snbao DznEQzW8PyswzzEPQBsoa1LnvRtpQkg27ubV4mvnK74uGCkjNhGFd2JxtgZdGaY7bHm7 MI5A== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf0mJtPsKd9j1jqmIgLmKCACGGBvnJNkrrWUQK0IoVji9RXvG7il YMlFo17Q5eeZHVfws/5E0G2xwY+myx4rkXV5Hnl07Wts/o3gjDnvoO8aDZEtenSBBV9bFak5OgS s7X4uy6D6fzlBGv/LTUPTTg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:3b94:b0:3b4:9cdc:dbd4 with SMTP id n20-20020a05600c3b9400b003b49cdcdbd4mr4743882wms.159.1664730398788; Sun, 02 Oct 2022 10:06:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM5bWoXjZeMDMVKnqpUDIAbtn17VGJ5ARJtOj0Xnn4P+6CnTO9iNyxWNMZEAeBSQugPi0A2pkg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:3b94:b0:3b4:9cdc:dbd4 with SMTP id n20-20020a05600c3b9400b003b49cdcdbd4mr4743869wms.159.1664730398575; Sun, 02 Oct 2022 10:06:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (52.72.115.87.dyn.plus.net. [87.115.72.52]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v129-20020a1cac87000000b003a845621c5bsm9048412wme.34.2022.10.02.10.06.37 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sun, 02 Oct 2022 10:06:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Andrew Burgess To: Bruno Larsen , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb/testsuite: handle invalid .exp names passed in TESTS In-Reply-To: <87k05vepci.fsf@redhat.com> References: <20220910164349.1945521-1-aburgess@redhat.com> <87k05vepci.fsf@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2022 18:06:37 +0100 Message-ID: <87mtaegnoi.fsf@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, RCVD_IN_BARRACUDACENTRAL, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE, TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) 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: Sun, 02 Oct 2022 17:06:44 -0000 Andrew Burgess writes: > Bruno Larsen writes: > >> Hi Andrew, >> >> Once again, very well timed patch as I had just noticed this problem! >> Other than a typo (response inlined), my only comment is that, since you >> are already renaming check-single, what do you think about renaming to >> check-single-thread or check-sequential? > > Except I'm not really renaming check-single. I'm adding a dependency to > check-single, and replacing the recipe for check-single. But > check-single itself continues to exist just as it did before. > > I'm not against renaming check-single to something else, but I think it > should probably be done as a separate patch with its own justification. > >> My reasoning is that when first reading the message and diff, I thought >> this rule would test a single test, which left me confused for a minute. > > I can see that. > >> >> Either way, I like the patch, and encourage you to approve it! > > I'll give this a little longer to see if anyone else has any thoughts, > then I'll merge it. I've gone ahead and merged this patch. Thanks, Andrew