Re: [PATCH v11] Add pretty printers for the NPTL lock types

[Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com>]

On Thu, 2016-12-22 at 13:43 -0300, Martin Galvan wrote:
> 2016-12-22 13:34 GMT-03:00 Torvald Riegel <triegel@redhat.com>:
> > Testing the pretty printers if the build host gdb isn't ready out of the
> > box is quite annoying.
> 
> How so? IIRC the tests should return UNSUPPORTED when gdb is absent.
> Are you seeing something different?

Yeah, they print UNSUPPORTED, but it's not straightforward to get to a
point where your test setup is sufficient to do more than UNSUPPORTED.

> > It would be good if README.pretty-printers could
> > be improved to cover this.
> 
> The README says:
> 
> "The tests run on the glibc host, which is assumed to have both gdb
> and PExpect; if any of those is absent the tests will fail with code
> 77 (UNSUPPORTED)."
> 
> What do you suggest? Should it mention that the gdb binary should
> actually be called "gdb" and be somewhere within PATH?

I first thought it would pick the system gdb and not the one from $PATH.
This was because I had built a new gdb with --with-python, and I can do
a 'python print "hello"' successfully from the new prompt of the new gdb
I've built.  It seems that the new gdb is used, but the test script
still complaints that the gdb doesn't support python ('gdb must have
python support to test the pretty printers.').  pexpect should be
installed for the python that's used.  What am I doing wrong?