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

Joel Brobecker
2009-09-10T23:30:10Z

> 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