Re: [PATCH]: testsuite/gdb.base/ending-run.*

Corinna Vinschen
2001-09-18T08:26:00Z

On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 10:53:21AM -0400, Fernando Nasser wrote:
> Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 09:28:19AM -0400, Fernando Nasser wrote:
> > > Thanks for the patch.
> > >
> > > It is approved with a small change (see below). It is OK fr the tests
> > > to expect alternative patterns depending on the target, but the
> > > test identification must remain the same nevertheless (it would
> > > confuse people's test result analysis scripts otherwise).
> > > The reference that matches the pattern to the architecture must
> > > be on the comment (only).
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Fernando
> > >
> > > P.S.: It is OK to still say "ARM thumb" as ARM is the reference
> > > architecture
> > > that is licensed by chip manufacturers (it is still ARM at the core).
> >
> > I'm sorry about that. It's not an ARM in thumb mode. I just
> > copied the text from the case below and didn't remove the "thumb"
> > text. It should be
> >
> > pass "step out of main on Stormy16"
> >
> > Still ok?
> >
>
> No, all the "pass" statements (as well as the "fail", "xfail" etc.) must
> have the same test id string. In this case, all the "-re" patterns
> must result in a "pass" or "fail" with that same string (except that the
> "fail" may have a reason between parenthesis after the test id string,
> like "(timeout)" for instance).

I don't understand the difference in my case. The output strings
are already different:

-re ".*Program exited normally.*$gdb_prompt $" {
# This is what happens on Linux i86 (and I would expect others)
set program_exited 1
pass "step out of main"
}
-re ".*in .nope ().*$gdb_prompt $" {
# This is what happens on Solaris currently -sts 1999-08-25
pass "step out of main on Solaris"
}
-re ".*in ..change.mode ().*$gdb_prompt $" {
# This is what happens on ARM in thumb mode -fn 2000-02-01
pass "step out of main on ARM thumb"
}

Why should my non-ARM target use the ARM specific output?!?

Corinna