From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29748 invoked by alias); 22 May 2003 06:52:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 29735 invoked from network); 22 May 2003 06:52:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 May 2003 06:52:17 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (nat-pool-rdu-dmz.redhat.com [172.16.52.200] (may be forged)) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4M6qGH24003 for ; Thu, 22 May 2003 02:52:16 -0400 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4M6qFT24634; Thu, 22 May 2003 02:52:15 -0400 Received: from cygbert.vinschen.de (vpn50-15.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.15]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h4M6qEa07622; Wed, 21 May 2003 23:52:14 -0700 Received: by cygbert.vinschen.de (Postfix, from userid 500) id CDD8D58111; Thu, 22 May 2003 08:52:11 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 06:52:00 -0000 From: Corinna Vinschen To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA]: File-I/O patch, testsuite Message-ID: <20030522065211.GH19367@cygbert.vinschen.de> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20021121101107.V24928@cygbert.vinschen.de> <3ECC02D9.3060306@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3ECC02D9.3060306@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00420.txt.bz2 On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 06:51:05PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >However, this tests are currently running always, regardless if the > >target implements this functionality or not. I'm not quite sure > >about the best way to skip these tests for those targets... > > I was going to suggest: > > ># test only on a remote target board > >if {! [is_remote target]} { > > return > >} Yeah, we could add this. Sounds about right. > but it doesn't hurt to have this run native (should work?). It doesn't make any sense, though. :-) > I don't understand why: > > +catch "system \"chmod -f +w dir2.fileio.test\"" > +catch "system \"rm -rf *.fileio.test\"" > > appears twice. Paranoid mode. The catches removes all files produced by the fileio tests of a previous testsuite run and it does so at the end to not let them hanging around when the test finishes. The test itself needs to have a clean start, otherwise it produces a couple of annoying FAILs. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Cygwin Developer Red Hat, Inc. mailto:vinschen@redhat.com