From: Luis Machado <luis.machado@arm.com>
To: Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [AArch64,v5] MTE corefile support
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2022 15:25:59 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d65007fe-e5a5-2ccb-3699-124e9f247938@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <541510b3-fe64-45cf-c505-dc758a2b4122@palves.net>
Hi,
On 7/18/22 14:54, Pedro Alves wrote:
> Hi!
>
> This version looks good to me. Just one nit in the testcase. No need to repost for this.
>
> On 2022-07-11 11:57 a.m., Luis Machado wrote:
>> +foreach_with_prefix mode {"sync" "async"} {
>> +
>> + if {$mode == "async"} {
>> + lappend compile_flags "additional_flags=-DASYNC"
>> + }
>> +
>> + standard_testfile
>> + set executable "${testfile}-${mode}"
>> + if {[prepare_for_testing "failed to prepare" ${executable} ${srcfile} ${compile_flags}]} {
>> + return -1
>
> If we hit this return while testing "sync", then "async" won't be tested either. Similarly
> for the other returns below. To avoid scenarios like this (and in the future if the code evolves
> to have more early returns), it's IMO better/safer to move the body of the foreach_with_prefix
> to a procedure, like:
>
> proc test {mode} {
> global srcfile testfile
>
> if {$mode == "async"} {
> lappend compile_flags "additional_flags=-DASYNC"
> }
>
> standard_testfile
> set executable "${testfile}-${mode}"
> if {[prepare_for_testing "failed to prepare" ${executable} ${srcfile} ${compile_flags}]} {
> return -1
>
> ...
> }
>
> foreach_with_prefix mode {"sync" "async"} {
> test $mode
> }
Thanks. That made it more organized. I've made the changes and pushed both the GDB and the binutils
changes.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-07-19 14:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-03-31 14:03 [AArch64] " Luis Machado
2022-04-21 15:20 ` [PATCH, v2] " Luis Machado
2022-04-21 15:52 ` Eli Zaretskii
2022-04-22 8:12 ` Luis Machado
2022-04-22 8:30 ` Eli Zaretskii
2022-04-22 8:37 ` Luis Machado
2022-04-22 8:43 ` Eli Zaretskii
2022-04-22 8:44 ` Luis Machado
2022-04-22 13:27 ` [PATCH 1/2] " Luis Machado
2022-04-22 13:33 ` Eli Zaretskii
2022-04-22 13:30 ` [PATCH, v3] " Luis Machado
2022-05-03 21:56 ` [PATCH, v4] " Luis Machado
2022-05-12 10:36 ` Luis Machado
2022-05-18 12:46 ` Luis Machado
2022-05-18 13:58 ` John Baldwin
2022-05-23 9:50 ` Luis Machado
2022-05-23 9:49 ` Luis Machado
2022-06-06 9:28 ` Luis Machado
2022-06-06 9:42 ` Kuan-Ying Lee
2022-06-06 9:47 ` Luis Machado
2022-06-06 9:54 ` Kuan-Ying Lee
2022-06-06 10:49 ` Eli Zaretskii
2022-06-22 9:04 ` Luis Machado
2022-06-27 14:51 ` Pedro Alves
2022-07-11 10:13 ` Luis Machado
2022-07-11 10:57 ` [PATCH] [AArch64,v5] " Luis Machado
2022-07-18 13:54 ` Pedro Alves
2022-07-19 14:25 ` Luis Machado [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=d65007fe-e5a5-2ccb-3699-124e9f247938@arm.com \
--to=luis.machado@arm.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=pedro@palves.net \
/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).