* [PATCH] Remove XPASS on s390*
@ 2004-03-17 19:18 Ulrich Weigand
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Ulrich Weigand
2004-03-22 14:41 ` [commit] Zap XPASS from watchpoints.exp; Was: " Andrew Cagney
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ulrich Weigand @ 2004-03-17 19:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-patches
Hello,
this patch removes an XPASS in the gdb.base/watchpoint.exp test case
by calling clear_xfail for s390* (as is already done for many other
targets).
Bye,
Ulrich
ChangeLog:
* gdb.base/watchpoint.exp (test_stepping): Clear XFAIL for
s390* targets.
Index: gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/watchpoint.exp
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/watchpoint.exp,v
retrieving revision 1.10
diff -c -p -r1.10 watchpoint.exp
*** gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/watchpoint.exp 6 Oct 2003 19:31:43 -0000 1.10
--- gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/watchpoint.exp 17 Mar 2004 17:45:54 -0000
*************** proc test_stepping {} {
*** 395,400 ****
--- 395,401 ----
clear_xfail "hppa*-*-*bsd*"
# It works with the generic inferior function calling code too.
clear_xfail "mn10300*-*-*"
+ clear_xfail "s390*-*-*"
# The following architectures define CALL_DUMMY_HAS_COMPLETED.
clear_xfail "hppa*-*-*hpux*"
gdb_test "p func1 ()" "= 73" \
--
Dr. Ulrich Weigand
weigand@informatik.uni-erlangen.de
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] Remove XPASS on s390*
2004-03-17 19:18 [PATCH] Remove XPASS on s390* Ulrich Weigand
@ 2004-03-19 0:09 ` Ulrich Weigand
2004-03-22 14:41 ` [commit] Zap XPASS from watchpoints.exp; Was: " Andrew Cagney
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ulrich Weigand @ 2004-03-19 0:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-patches
Hello,
this patch removes an XPASS in the gdb.base/watchpoint.exp test case
by calling clear_xfail for s390* (as is already done for many other
targets).
Bye,
Ulrich
ChangeLog:
* gdb.base/watchpoint.exp (test_stepping): Clear XFAIL for
s390* targets.
Index: gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/watchpoint.exp
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/watchpoint.exp,v
retrieving revision 1.10
diff -c -p -r1.10 watchpoint.exp
*** gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/watchpoint.exp 6 Oct 2003 19:31:43 -0000 1.10
--- gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/watchpoint.exp 17 Mar 2004 17:45:54 -0000
*************** proc test_stepping {} {
*** 395,400 ****
--- 395,401 ----
clear_xfail "hppa*-*-*bsd*"
# It works with the generic inferior function calling code too.
clear_xfail "mn10300*-*-*"
+ clear_xfail "s390*-*-*"
# The following architectures define CALL_DUMMY_HAS_COMPLETED.
clear_xfail "hppa*-*-*hpux*"
gdb_test "p func1 ()" "= 73" \
--
Dr. Ulrich Weigand
weigand@informatik.uni-erlangen.de
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [commit] Zap XPASS from watchpoints.exp; Was: [PATCH] Remove XPASS on s390*
2004-03-17 19:18 [PATCH] Remove XPASS on s390* Ulrich Weigand
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Ulrich Weigand
@ 2004-03-22 14:41 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-03-22 19:08 ` [commit] Zap XPASS from watchpoints.exp; Was: [PATCH] Remove XPASS Ulrich Weigand
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cagney @ 2004-03-22 14:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ulrich Weigand; +Cc: gdb-patches
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 524 bytes --]
> Hello,
>
> this patch removes an XPASS in the gdb.base/watchpoint.exp test case
> by calling clear_xfail for s390* (as is already done for many other
> targets).
Hmm, you tripped over a landmine :-(. In the past many of GDB's
testcases were incorrectly XFAILed (as a way of hiding design flaws that
were thought to be unfixable / or the individual had no intention of
fixing ...). XFAIL only applies to problems eXternal to GDB (OS bugs,
...) which these are not.
I've removed the offending XFAIL junk.
Andrew
[-- Attachment #2: diffs --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1767 bytes --]
2004-03-22 Andrew Cagney <cagney@redhat.com>
* gdb.base/watchpoint.exp (test_stepping): Delete bogus XFAILs
hiding problems with DEPRECATED_CALL_DUMMY_BREAKPOINT_OFFSET.
Problem identified by Ulrich Weigand.
Index: gdb.base/watchpoint.exp
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/watchpoint.exp,v
retrieving revision 1.10
diff -u -r1.10 watchpoint.exp
--- gdb.base/watchpoint.exp 6 Oct 2003 19:31:43 -0000 1.10
+++ gdb.base/watchpoint.exp 22 Mar 2004 14:23:09 -0000
@@ -374,31 +374,8 @@
gdb_test "break func2 if 0" "Breakpoint.*at.*"
gdb_test "p \$func2_breakpoint_number = \$bpnum" " = .*"
- # The problem is that GDB confuses stepping through the call
- # dummy with hitting the breakpoint at the end of the call dummy.
- # Will be fixed once all architectures define
- # DEPRECATED_CALL_DUMMY_BREAKPOINT_OFFSET.
- setup_xfail "*-*-*"
- # This doesn't occur if the call dummy starts with a call,
- # because we are out of the dummy by the first time the inferior
- # stops.
- clear_xfail "arm*-*-*"
- clear_xfail "xscale*-*-*"
- clear_xfail "d10v*-*-*"
- clear_xfail "m68*-*-*"
- clear_xfail "i*86*-*-*"
- clear_xfail "vax-*-*"
- # The following architectures define DEPRECATED_CALL_DUMMY_BREAKPOINT_OFFSET.
- clear_xfail "alpha-*-*"
- clear_xfail "mips*-*-*"
- clear_xfail "sparc-*-*"
- clear_xfail "hppa*-*-*bsd*"
- # It works with the generic inferior function calling code too.
- clear_xfail "mn10300*-*-*"
- # The following architectures define CALL_DUMMY_HAS_COMPLETED.
- clear_xfail "hppa*-*-*hpux*"
gdb_test "p func1 ()" "= 73" \
- "calling function with watchpoint enabled"
+ "calling function with watchpoint enabled"
#
# "finish" brings us back to main.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [commit] Zap XPASS from watchpoints.exp; Was: [PATCH] Remove XPASS
2004-03-22 14:41 ` [commit] Zap XPASS from watchpoints.exp; Was: " Andrew Cagney
@ 2004-03-22 19:08 ` Ulrich Weigand
2004-03-22 19:22 ` Andrew Cagney
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ulrich Weigand @ 2004-03-22 19:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Cagney; +Cc: Ulrich Weigand, gdb-patches
Andrew Cagney wrote:
> Hmm, you tripped over a landmine :-(. In the past many of GDB's
> testcases were incorrectly XFAILed (as a way of hiding design flaws that
> were thought to be unfixable / or the individual had no intention of
> fixing ...). XFAIL only applies to problems eXternal to GDB (OS bugs,
> ...) which these are not.
I hadn't been aware of this interpretation of XFAIL in gdb; my understanding
(and current use in gcc) is that XFAIL means eXpected failure ...
>I've removed the offending XFAIL junk.
Thanks!
Bye,
Ulrich
--
Dr. Ulrich Weigand
weigand@informatik.uni-erlangen.de
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [commit] Zap XPASS from watchpoints.exp; Was: [PATCH] Remove XPASS
2004-03-22 19:08 ` [commit] Zap XPASS from watchpoints.exp; Was: [PATCH] Remove XPASS Ulrich Weigand
@ 2004-03-22 19:22 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-03-22 19:39 ` [commit] Zap XPASS from watchpoints.exp; Was: [PATCH] Remove Ulrich Weigand
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cagney @ 2004-03-22 19:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ulrich Weigand; +Cc: gdb-patches
> Andrew Cagney wrote:
>
>
>>> Hmm, you tripped over a landmine :-(. In the past many of GDB's
>>> testcases were incorrectly XFAILed (as a way of hiding design flaws that
>>> were thought to be unfixable / or the individual had no intention of
>>> fixing ...). XFAIL only applies to problems eXternal to GDB (OS bugs,
>>> ...) which these are not.
>
>
> I hadn't been aware of this interpretation of XFAIL in gdb; my understanding
> (and current use in gcc) is that XFAIL means eXpected failure ...
For GDB, I should more correctly state eXpected FAIL due to eXternal
problem. Which is different to a Known FAIL due to GDB bug. :-)
Andrew
>>>I've removed the offending XFAIL junk.
>
>
> Thanks!
>
> Bye,
> Ulrich
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [commit] Zap XPASS from watchpoints.exp; Was: [PATCH] Remove
2004-03-22 19:22 ` Andrew Cagney
@ 2004-03-22 19:39 ` Ulrich Weigand
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ulrich Weigand @ 2004-03-22 19:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Cagney; +Cc: Ulrich Weigand, gdb-patches
Andrew Cagney wrote:
> For GDB, I should more correctly state eXpected FAIL due to eXternal
> problem. Which is different to a Known FAIL due to GDB bug. :-)
I see; thanks for the clarification!
Bye,
Ulrich
--
Dr. Ulrich Weigand
weigand@informatik.uni-erlangen.de
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-03-22 19:39 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-03-17 19:18 [PATCH] Remove XPASS on s390* Ulrich Weigand
2004-03-19 0:09 ` Ulrich Weigand
2004-03-22 14:41 ` [commit] Zap XPASS from watchpoints.exp; Was: " Andrew Cagney
2004-03-22 19:08 ` [commit] Zap XPASS from watchpoints.exp; Was: [PATCH] Remove XPASS Ulrich Weigand
2004-03-22 19:22 ` Andrew Cagney
2004-03-22 19:39 ` [commit] Zap XPASS from watchpoints.exp; Was: [PATCH] Remove Ulrich Weigand
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox