From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-11080-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 448 invoked by alias); 5 Dec 2001 20:17:15 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 355 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2001 20:17:10 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.230.5)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 5 Dec 2001 20:17:10 -0000
Received: from cygbert.vinschen.de (cse.cygnus.com [205.180.230.236])
	by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id MAA08845
	for <gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 12:17:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from corinna@localhost)
	by cygbert.vinschen.de (8.9.3/8.9.3/Linux sendmail 8.9.3) id VAA30383
	for gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com; Wed, 5 Dec 2001 21:17:08 +0100
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 12:17:00 -0000
From: Corinna Vinschen <vinschen@redhat.com>
To: gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFA]: testsuite/gdb.base/a2-bin.exp: Consider `needs_status_wrapper' target_info
Message-ID: <20011205211708.I29719@cygbert.vinschen.de>
Reply-To: gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
References: <20011205202507.E29719@cygbert.vinschen.de> <20011205145440.A16409@nevyn.them.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <20011205145440.A16409@nevyn.them.org>; from drow@mvista.com on Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 02:54:40PM -0500
X-SW-Source: 2001-12/txt/msg00147.txt.bz2

On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 02:54:40PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 08:25:07PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > 2001-12-05  Corinna Vinschen  <vinschen@redhat.com>
> > 
> > 	* gdb.base/a2-bin.exp: Pass first test even if the return
> > 	code is 0 if target_info `needs_status_wrapper' exists.
> 
> Please don't turn this into a PASS; it didn't really test anything as I
> read it.  "unsupported" is probably the appropriate return code.

I don't think so.  The test tests that the application returns
it's usage so it has tested that the application got it's argc
correctly.  That's what the test is for, right?  It's just an
_additional_ test that the return code is 1.  It's not GDB's
fault that the target can't return the return code correctly.

Corinna