From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11044 invoked by alias); 15 Aug 2019 03:13:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 10953 invoked by uid 89); 15 Aug 2019 03:12:56 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-6.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_SHORT,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy= X-HELO: simark.ca Received: from simark.ca (HELO simark.ca) (158.69.221.121) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 03:12:55 +0000 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (unknown [192.222.164.54]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C594A1E059; Wed, 14 Aug 2019 23:12:53 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [patch, testsuite] Disable dw2-dir-file-name.exp on remote and/or Windows host To: Sandra Loosemore , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" References: <9bb4446e-8a94-496d-ab8c-6d1197ac0728@codesourcery.com> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: <18b00c50-2cc0-b327-a06b-25df81b2f70b@simark.ca> Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 03:13:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <9bb4446e-8a94-496d-ab8c-6d1197ac0728@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2019-08/txt/msg00318.txt.bz2 On 2019-08-13 6:29 p.m., Sandra Loosemore wrote: > This is yet another testsuite fix to clean up results on remote Windows > host. > > For this testcase, I did consider trying to fix it rather than just > disabling it for remote host, but it looked like it was going to be an > awful lot of work and trial-and-error (it has almost no comments to > explain what it is trying to test, or how it is getting there). I think > it is at least an incremental improvement to document that it isn't > expected to work as-is on remote host. And disabling it does get rid of > 33 completely bogus FAILs. :-P > > OK? > > -Sandra > > +# This test has hard-wired assumptions that host and build filenames are > +# the same, and assumes POSIX pathname syntax. > +if { [is_remote host] || [ishost *-*-mingw*] } { > + return 0 > +} > + Should we use "untested" or "unsupported" before returning, to have at least a status in the logs? The definition of "unsupported" seems appropriate for this case: Declares that a test case depends on some facility that does not exist in the testing environment. From: https://www.gnu.org/software/dejagnu/manual/unsupported-procedure.html Simon