Re: [RFA] Make the prec support signal better[0/4]

[Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>]

> Attached is a test case for it -- it will have a number of
> XFAILS without this patch, which will become PASSES with the patch.

I looked at the testcase, and noticed a couple of things:

> #   Copyright 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2007, 2008, 2009

I was surprised by the copyright years, but I then read the contents
of the testcase that mentions alpha-osf3.  That's when I realized
that this file is inspired by sigall.exp... I supposed that this
was the right thing to do, although it probably does not matter
because I believe that these headers are actually not legally
significant.

> if [target_info exists gdb,nosignals] {
>     verbose "Skipping sigall-reverse.exp because of nosignals."
>     continue
> }

I wonder why we do a continue here, whereas we do a return elsewhere:

> if ![target_info exists gdb,can_reverse] {
>     return
> }

I wish we had a cookbook for writing testcases, I always forget what
we're supposed to do :-(. Anyone knows if this is significant?

> 	send_gdb "continue\n"
> 	if { $thissig == "IO" } {
> 	    setup_xfail "i*86-pc-linuxoldld-gnu" "i*86-pc-linuxaout-gnu"
> 	}
> 	gdb_expect {
[...]

IMO, the send_gdb/gdb_expect sequences in this script should be converted
to using test_gdb_multiple. I'd rather we avoid send_gdb/gdb_expect
if we can.

-- 
Joel