From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5757 invoked by alias); 10 Sep 2009 23:30:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 5743 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Sep 2009 23:30:09 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Sep 2009 23:30:02 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B8E92BAC51; Thu, 10 Sep 2009 19:30:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id R6U2dl75iS0x; Thu, 10 Sep 2009 19:30:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B85952BAC4F; Thu, 10 Sep 2009 19:30:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2FDBCF5915; Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:29:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 23:30:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Michael Snyder Cc: Hui Zhu , gdb-patches ml Subject: Re: [RFA] Make the prec support signal better[0/4] Message-ID: <20090910232952.GP20694@adacore.com> References: <4AA95648.10605@vmware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4AA95648.10605@vmware.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-09/txt/msg00296.txt.bz2 > 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