From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3151 invoked by alias); 9 Aug 2006 18:05:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 3136 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Aug 2006 18:05:42 -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; Wed, 09 Aug 2006 18:05:40 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1GAsR0-0007XK-A8; Wed, 09 Aug 2006 14:05:38 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2006 00:35:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA/testsuite] Remove all remaining gdb_suppress_entire_file Message-ID: <20060809180538.GA28952@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.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> <20060809165110.GB15936@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060809165110.GB15936@adacore.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: 2006-08/txt/msg00073.txt.bz2 Message-ID: <20060810003500.IxcbFyqMrNYOr1gOK7vVQFUAhgb9ih5dZV4ozLzR6DU@z> On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 09:51:10AM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > 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? Yes, please. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery