From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: fnasser@cygnus.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa/testsuite/mi] Recognize a few incorrect outputs Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 13:38:00 -0000 Message-id: <20010928163842.A24766@nevyn.them.org> References: <20010928151616.A14106@nevyn.them.org> <3BB4DEBB.1020906@cygnus.com> X-SW-Source: 2001-09/msg00434.html On Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 04:34:03PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > > A lot of GDB tests seem to be written with only pass and timeout > > alternatives, or only with overly-specialized fails. The hypocrite-alert > > readers of this message will note that I'm guilty of the same thing; this is > > Just Enough to make them catch a few errors I could think of, not enough to > > recognize completely wrong output. Someday, someone more motivated than I > > should clean this up. > > > > For the MI, this is a pretty obvious fix. I've been doing the same > thing my self (when I noticed it). One suggestion, can you make that > fail expression less strict so that it picks. Something like: > > (gdb) (gdb) > pass > > .* (gdb) .* (gdb) > fail > > timeout > fail > > alternatively (hmm, better?), keep the expression as you have it but add > a comment in paren vis: > > fail "continue to incr_a (compiler bug info is wrong)" Can we do that? I was under the impression that "(timeout)" was special. If we can, I'll add both cases - for the wrong debug info and for some unknown failing output. I'm tempted to mark such tests XFAIL if we can obviously detect that the compiler is at fault; admittedly, the test isn't perfect, but it's still better than the current state of affairs... -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer