From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12749 invoked by alias); 9 Aug 2006 16:51:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 12739 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Aug 2006 16:51:15 -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; Wed, 09 Aug 2006 16:51:13 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55D4A48CBD7; Wed, 9 Aug 2006 12:51:11 -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 27133-02-6; Wed, 9 Aug 2006 12:51:11 -0400 (EDT) Received: from takamaka.act-europe.fr (unknown [70.71.0.212]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB6EB48CBD5; Wed, 9 Aug 2006 12:51:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id 2CE8C47EFA; Wed, 9 Aug 2006 09:51:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 18:05:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA/testsuite] Remove all remaining gdb_suppress_entire_file Message-ID: <20060809165110.GB15936@adacore.com> References: <20060721002619.GE1499@adacore.com> <200607212205.k6LM5sNC003058@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060721232842.GA30038@nevyn.them.org> <20060808190052.GG24779@nevyn.them.org> <200608082010.k78KAB1h005794@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060808202420.GA30302@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060808202420.GA30302@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: 2006-08/txt/msg00072.txt.bz2 > On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 10:10:11PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > Hmm, I guess what I really want is an UNTESTED if the failure was to > > be expected (for example the ADA tests if there is no ADA compiler on > > the system) and an error if something went wrong that shouldn't have > > gone wrong (an ICE from GCC on one of the testsuite code snippets). > > However, there probably isn't always a clear distinction between the > > two. For example, do we expect C++ snippets to compile on all > > systems? I suppose Joel's patch is progress; we can always tweak > > things later if we feel the UNTESTEDs are inappropriate. > > Sounds good to me. We do expect most of the tests to compile on most > systems, except for those with "strange" dependencies - meaning > everything but C and C++ and anything with threads. But I don't see > a good way to capture this information that isn't more trouble than > it's really worth. Does it mean I should go ahead and commit this patch? Thanks, -- Joel