* [PATCH] gnu_vector.exp: Respect `should_kfail' for PR8549
@ 2016-01-19 16:33 Andreas Arnez
2016-01-19 17:33 ` Yao Qi
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Andreas Arnez @ 2016-01-19 16:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-patches; +Cc: Yao Qi
The gnu_vector test case yields a new FAIL on s390x:
FAIL: gdb.base/gnu_vector.exp: verify vector return value
It was introduced by commit 77ae9c1933b50 "gdb.base/gnu_vector.exp:
Don't test output from the inferior". That commit dropped the special
handling for GDB's inability (on some targets) to set the return value.
This change re-establishes the logic from before, converting the above
FAIL to a KFAIL (PRMS gdb/8549).
gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gdb.base/gnu_vector.exp: Re-establish handling for should_kfail
when GDB can not set the vector return value.
---
gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/gnu_vector.exp | 14 +++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/gnu_vector.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/gnu_vector.exp
index 6414afd..127c0b7 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/gnu_vector.exp
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/gnu_vector.exp
@@ -240,4 +240,16 @@ gdb_test_multiple "return (int4) \{4, 2, 7, 6\}" $test {
}
gdb_test "next" ""
-gdb_test "p res" "\\{4, 2, 7, 6\\}.*" "verify vector return value"
+set test "verify vector return value"
+gdb_test_multiple "p res" $test {
+ -re ".*= \\{4, 2, 7, 6\\}\r\n.*$gdb_prompt $" {
+ pass $test
+ }
+ -re ".*= \\{10, 20, 48, 72\\}\r\n.*$gdb_prompt $" {
+ if { $should_kfail } {
+ kfail "gdb/8549" $test
+ } else {
+ fail $test
+ }
+ }
+}
--
2.5.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] gnu_vector.exp: Respect `should_kfail' for PR8549
2016-01-19 16:33 [PATCH] gnu_vector.exp: Respect `should_kfail' for PR8549 Andreas Arnez
@ 2016-01-19 17:33 ` Yao Qi
2016-01-19 18:46 ` Andreas Arnez
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Yao Qi @ 2016-01-19 17:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andreas Arnez; +Cc: gdb-patches, Yao Qi
Andreas Arnez <arnez@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> -gdb_test "p res" "\\{4, 2, 7, 6\\}.*" "verify vector return value"
> +set test "verify vector return value"
> +gdb_test_multiple "p res" $test {
> + -re ".*= \\{4, 2, 7, 6\\}\r\n.*$gdb_prompt $" {
> + pass $test
> + }
> + -re ".*= \\{10, 20, 48, 72\\}\r\n.*$gdb_prompt $" {
> + if { $should_kfail } {
> + kfail "gdb/8549" $test
> + } else {
> + fail $test
> + }
> + }
> +}
IMO, if GDB for a certain target doesn't handle "return" and "finish"
correctly, the return value can be some random results. Why do we match
"\\{10, 20, 48, 72\\}" here? I presume that because "10, 20, 48, 72"
was returned in the previous test. Do *all* targets don't correctly handle
"return" and "finish" return "\\{10, 20, 48, 72\\}"? In other words, if
we know it is broken already, why do still match the output? We can
kfail it according to the target triplet.
--
Yao (齐尧)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] gnu_vector.exp: Respect `should_kfail' for PR8549
2016-01-19 17:33 ` Yao Qi
@ 2016-01-19 18:46 ` Andreas Arnez
2016-01-20 9:32 ` Yao Qi
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Andreas Arnez @ 2016-01-19 18:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yao Qi; +Cc: gdb-patches
On Tue, Jan 19 2016, Yao Qi wrote:
> Andreas Arnez <arnez@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>
>> -gdb_test "p res" "\\{4, 2, 7, 6\\}.*" "verify vector return value"
>> +set test "verify vector return value"
>> +gdb_test_multiple "p res" $test {
>> + -re ".*= \\{4, 2, 7, 6\\}\r\n.*$gdb_prompt $" {
>> + pass $test
>> + }
>> + -re ".*= \\{10, 20, 48, 72\\}\r\n.*$gdb_prompt $" {
>> + if { $should_kfail } {
>> + kfail "gdb/8549" $test
>> + } else {
>> + fail $test
>> + }
>> + }
>> +}
>
> IMO, if GDB for a certain target doesn't handle "return" and "finish"
> correctly, the return value can be some random results. Why do we match
> "\\{10, 20, 48, 72\\}" here? I presume that because "10, 20, 48, 72"
> was returned in the previous test. Do *all* targets don't correctly handle
> "return" and "finish" return "\\{10, 20, 48, 72\\}"? In other words, if
> we know it is broken already, why do still match the output? We can
> kfail it according to the target triplet.
Doing the KFAIL based on the target triplet would miss the point of this
test on s390x, because on the same target "s390x-ibm-linux-gnu" the test
shall succeed if the CPU has vector registers and the vector ABI is
used, but is known to fail if a non-vector ABI is used. (Note that the
main reason for enhancing the gnu_vector test case was to verify GDB's
correct treatment of the s390x vector ABI.)
But testing against some expected return value in this case is certainly
wrong. I suggest to change my patch like follows. WDYT?
diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/gnu_vector.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/gnu_vector.exp
index 127c0b7..c911830 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/gnu_vector.exp
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/gnu_vector.exp
@@ -245,7 +245,7 @@ gdb_test_multiple "p res" $test {
-re ".*= \\{4, 2, 7, 6\\}\r\n.*$gdb_prompt $" {
pass $test
}
- -re ".*= \\{10, 20, 48, 72\\}\r\n.*$gdb_prompt $" {
+ -re ".*= \\{.*\\}\r\n.*$gdb_prompt $" {
if { $should_kfail } {
kfail "gdb/8549" $test
} else {
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] gnu_vector.exp: Respect `should_kfail' for PR8549
2016-01-19 18:46 ` Andreas Arnez
@ 2016-01-20 9:32 ` Yao Qi
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Yao Qi @ 2016-01-20 9:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andreas Arnez; +Cc: Yao Qi, gdb-patches
Andreas Arnez <arnez@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> Doing the KFAIL based on the target triplet would miss the point of this
> test on s390x, because on the same target "s390x-ibm-linux-gnu" the test
> shall succeed if the CPU has vector registers and the vector ABI is
> used, but is known to fail if a non-vector ABI is used. (Note that the
> main reason for enhancing the gnu_vector test case was to verify GDB's
> correct treatment of the s390x vector ABI.)
Could you add some comments in the test case about what you said above?
>
> But testing against some expected return value in this case is certainly
> wrong. I suggest to change my patch like follows. WDYT?
That is fine with me.
--
Yao (齐尧)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-01-20 9:32 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-01-19 16:33 [PATCH] gnu_vector.exp: Respect `should_kfail' for PR8549 Andreas Arnez
2016-01-19 17:33 ` Yao Qi
2016-01-19 18:46 ` Andreas Arnez
2016-01-20 9:32 ` Yao Qi
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).