From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2729 invoked by alias); 21 Jul 2006 22:43:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 2720 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Jul 2006 22:43:35 -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; Fri, 21 Jul 2006 22:43:32 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94BB048CFD1; Fri, 21 Jul 2006 18:43:30 -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 26330-01-9; Fri, 21 Jul 2006 18:43:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from takamaka.act-europe.fr (unknown [70.71.0.212]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4076C48CE9C; Fri, 21 Jul 2006 18:43:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id 37D6F47EFA; Fri, 21 Jul 2006 15:43:29 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2006 22:43:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Mark Kettenis Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA/testsuite] Remove all remaining gdb_suppress_entire_file Message-ID: <20060721224329.GA1312@adacore.com> References: <20060721002619.GE1499@adacore.com> <200607212205.k6LM5sNC003058@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200607212205.k6LM5sNC003058@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> 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: 2006-07/txt/msg00305.txt.bz2 > Most of these are checking compile failures. Are we still seeing some > sort of ERROR about that in the testsuite output, or just UNTESTED? The worst case I've had in the past was timeouts, it's been a while though. But the reason I thought it was a good idea was that it didn't seem to make sense to me to run the testcase anyway if we didn't manage to build the test executable, did it. In other words, why announce that all following tests will fail and run them nonetheless? It's not the only reason because I wouldn't mind if that was just the case. But I remember telling myself that I could have avoided a lot of grief at certain times if we stopped the testcase after failing to do the compile. The failures these tests detect put the testcase into a sort of degraded mode, and dejagnu is not so good sometimes in these modes... Sorry that my memory is so vague. Perhaps Daniel has more concrete examples in mind... -- Joel