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
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 >
>>>>> "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
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
>>>> 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
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.