From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23526 invoked by alias); 10 Jun 2006 00:09:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 23518 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Jun 2006 00:09:38 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nile.gnat.com (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 10 Jun 2006 00:09:36 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70D2F48CDEF for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 20:09:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nile.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 27784-01-10 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 20:09:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from takamaka.act-europe.fr (s142-179-108-108.bc.hsia.telus.net [142.179.108.108]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F30E948CBB1 for ; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 20:09:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id 619A847E7F; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 17:09:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 00:09:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Remove some spurious test fails Message-ID: <20060610000933.GD860@adacore.com> References: <4489936B.6020001@codesourcery.com> <20060609190957.GA5616@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060609190957.GA5616@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i 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/msg00118.txt.bz2 > > 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 I agree with Nathan too. In fact, I'm starting to reallly like "pure" testcases were we only test as few as possible different things. I don't want one side issue polluting the results of a given testcase... -- Joel