From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-18914-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 5229 invoked by alias); 24 Sep 2002 19:20:11 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 5220 invoked from network); 24 Sep 2002 19:20:10 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (66.30.197.194)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Sep 2002 19:20:10 -0000
Received: by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 469)
	id 258AEFE71; Tue, 24 Sep 2002 15:18:11 -0400 (EDT)
From: Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <15760.47731.146760.523431@localhost.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 12:20:00 -0000
To: Keith Seitz <keiths@redhat.com>
Cc: Elena Zannoni <ezannoni@redhat.com>, fnasser@redhat.com,
	<gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFA/MI testsuite] Add pthreads tests
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0209160919450.1395-100000@valrhona.uglyboxes.com>
References: <15748.56497.711652.479802@localhost.redhat.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.44.0209160919450.1395-100000@valrhona.uglyboxes.com>
X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00588.txt.bz2

Keith Seitz writes:
 > On Sun, 15 Sep 2002, Elena Zannoni wrote:
 > 
 > > I wonder if we should name the file gdb669.exp. 
 > 
 > The file tests more than just gdb/669: it tests all of the MI thread 
 > commands. I have more tests for this file which test the syncronization of 
 > the MI and console command interpreters.
 > 

Could you split it in two files? one .exp just for 669 with the kfail,
and one .exp for the rest. Even if you have to duplicate one proc or
two.  I thing it'll make things easier in the long run. So the
'generic' testfile can evolve freely.

 > I would add the setup_kfail bit, as Fernando recommends, but I'm afraid 
 > that the tests are rather undeterministic when it comes to gdb/669 -- any 
 > one of the checks for the syncronization could fail. (Maybe it doesn't 
 > matter?)
 > 

I think we can refine the test as we go, we are doing this all the
times anyway.  I am not too concerned.

Elena

 > > OK otherwise.
 > 
 > I'll wait to here from Fernando or you on the kfail bit, and then I'll 
 > commit it (and submit a patch to fix gdb/669).
 > 
 > Keith