From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26689 invoked by alias); 13 Jan 2004 23:37:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 26680 invoked from network); 13 Jan 2004 23:37:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (66.30.197.194) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Jan 2004 23:37:01 -0000 Received: by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 469) id 4E54A1A440D; Tue, 13 Jan 2004 18:35:28 -0500 (EST) From: Elena Zannoni MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16388.32960.224848.698477@localhost.redhat.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 23:37:00 -0000 To: mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain) Cc: ezannoni@redhat.com, drow@mvista.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] new test for separate debug info In-Reply-To: <20040113222405.AC4A64B104@berman.michael-chastain.com> References: <20040113222405.AC4A64B104@berman.michael-chastain.com> X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg00356.txt.bz2 Michael Elizabeth Chastain writes: > I've seen this "unknown debugging format" before, on dwarf-1. > I really agree with daniel's idea that the test should be > "if format == dwarf-2" rather than "if format != stabs+". > My idea was more to incrementally add broken cases to the skip list as we find them. Or one can be in a situation where the test doesn't run and you don't even know if it really doesn't work. Definitely the 'unknow debugging format' qualifies for skipping. Index: sepdebug.exp =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/sepdebug.exp,v retrieving revision 1.1 diff -u -p -r1.1 sepdebug.exp --- sepdebug.exp 12 Jan 2004 17:20:41 -0000 1.1 +++ sepdebug.exp 13 Jan 2004 23:20:41 -0000 @@ -72,6 +72,10 @@ if { [test_debug_format "stabs"] } then # (see dejagnu/lib/framework.exp) unsupported "no separate debug info handling with stabs" return -1 +} elseif { [test_debug_format "unknown"] } then { + # gdb doesn't know what the debug format is. We are out of luck here. + unsupported "unknown debugging format" + return -1 } gdb_exit > > Maybe the two unsupported messages should differ a bit more from each > > other: "cannot produce separate debug info file" instead? > > How about "strip --strip-debug failed", make it really clear. > Let me think about this, there is also objcopy in the mix. I did try to have the strip procedure return the error message from strip, so that it could be displayed, but the message is very long, so I returned 0 or 1. If you do make check with -v you'll see the real error. how is this: if [gdb_gnu_strip_debug $binfile] { - unsupported "no separate debug info handling" + unsupported "cannot produce separate debug info files (check that you have a recent version of strip and objcopy installed)" return -1 } elena > Michael C