From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-73448-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 3369 invoked by alias); 2 Jun 2010 15:04:06 -0000
Received: (qmail 3323 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Jun 2010 15:04:05 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 02 Jun 2010 15:04:00 +0000
Received: (qmail 14723 invoked from network); 2 Jun 2010 15:03:58 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2)  by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 2 Jun 2010 15:03:58 -0000
From: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [patch] new testcase: Internal error on unqualified name re-set (PR 11657)
Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2010 15:04:00 -0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.2 (Linux/2.6.32-22-generic; KDE/4.4.2; x86_64; ; )
Cc: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
References: <20100602143233.GA22447@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net>
In-Reply-To: <20100602143233.GA22447@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201006021603.50479.pedro@codesourcery.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2010-06/txt/msg00041.txt.bz2

On Wednesday 02 June 2010 15:32:33, Jan Kratochvil wrote:

> +# Create and source the file that provides information about the compiler
> +# used to compile the test case.
> +if [get_compiler_info ${binfile} "c++"] {
> +    return -1
> +}

Is this bit actually needed in this test?

> +
> +if { [gdb_compile_shlib $srcdir/$subdir/$libsrcfile $sofile {debug c++}] != ""
> +     || [gdb_compile $srcdir/$subdir/$srcfile $binfile executable [list debug "c++" shlib=${sofile}]] != ""} {
> +    untested ${testfile}.exp
> +    return -1
> +}
> +
> +clean_restart $executable
> +gdb_load_shlibs ${sofile}
> +
> +gdb_test_no_output "set breakpoint pending yes"
> +gdb_test "break C::C" {Breakpoint [0-9]+ \(C::C\) pending\.} "break C::C"
> +gdb_test_no_output {set variable $brk = $bpnum}
> +
> +gdb_breakpoint "main"
> +gdb_run_cmd
> +gdb_test "" "" "start"

Doesn't runto_main work in this case?

> +
> +set test "breakpoint resolved"
> +gdb_test_multiple {info breakpoints $brk} $test {
> +    -re "<PENDING>" {
> +	fail $test
> +    }
> +    -re "\r\n$gdb_prompt $" {
> +	# FIXME: Check more specific resolution state.
> +	pass $test
> +    }
> +}
> 

So will the test hit an internal error, causing a new FAIL?
How about setting up a kfail with the PR number?

-- 
Pedro Alves