From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24442 invoked by alias); 9 Jun 2006 19:10:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 24409 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Jun 2006 19:10:01 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Fri, 09 Jun 2006 19:09:59 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FomMn-0001VJ-3J for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Fri, 09 Jun 2006 15:09:57 -0400 Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2006 19:10:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Remove some spurious test fails Message-ID: <20060609190957.GA5616@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <4489936B.6020001@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4489936B.6020001@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-06/txt/msg00105.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 04:27:39PM +0100, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > This causes problems in the gdb testsuite because several tests presume one > can set a breakpoint or step to the final } of a function. The tests which > do this are not actually testing for that functionality, but merely using > it. For my target, this leads to a lot of spurious test failures. > > Although it would be good to fix gcc, that's not practical right now, and I > thought it would be better to defensively code the gdb testsuite anyway. Anyone else have an opinion on this? I think it's reasonable to avoid problematic constructs and test for them explicitly, but I have a vague memory that we didn't want to do that at some point in the past. It's pretty vague though; if no one has a reason, I'll approve this. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery