From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Corinna Vinschen <vinschen@redhat.com>
To: gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH]: testsuite/gdb.base/ending-run.*
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 08:26:00 -0000
Message-id: <20010918172615.C28304@cygbert.vinschen.de>
References: <20010912164628.T1285@cygbert.vinschen.de> <3BA74BF3.97D7C650@redhat.com> <20010918164242.A28304@cygbert.vinschen.de> <3BA75FE1.C13959A2@redhat.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-09/msg00235.html

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