From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20099 invoked by alias); 10 Dec 2010 12:15:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 19860 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Dec 2010 12:15:53 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 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; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 12:15:28 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FEAE2BAC8F; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 07:15:01 -0500 (EST) 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 tjFaRhpaFD1e; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 07:15:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E644A2BAC41; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 07:15:00 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id BCB12145B58; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 13:14:54 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 12:15:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Marc Khouzam Cc: 'Tom Tromey' , "'gdb-patches@sourceware.org'" Subject: Re: [MI] --thread-group test (was: RE: [MI] Duplicate --thread-group flag not detected) Message-ID: <20101210121454.GB2596@adacore.com> References: <20101126163842.GJ2634@adacore.com> <20101202170954.GA3031@adacore.com> <20101204184638.GB3031@adacore.com> <20101206110417.GC3031@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2010-12/txt/msg00132.txt.bz2 > Do I need a PR number to use KFAIL? I don't have one. > I used XFAIL instead. Is that right? XFAIL is for the case where the problem is caused by what I call the "environment". In other words, it's not GDB's fault. It could be bad debugging info, kernel bug, assember, etc... It took me a while to find the documentation for setup_kfail, but I confirm that bug ID must be provided with setup_kfail. > The annoying part there, is that the tests fails on a timeout, > so marking them XFAIL instead of commenting them out makes > the test file take 10 seconds more... In that case, I suggest we simply open bugs for these tests. I understand you are already making an effort trying to contribute this test, so I can create the new PRs for you if you are busy. In the meantime, let's take these tests out. > To be honest, I don't even need a binary for this test, I can test the > syntax without actually starting the inferior. I did this in the patch > below, but I'm not sure if this follows proper 'protocol'. Just let me > know. I would be perfectly fine. > > Do we want to test the MI command with a sequence number. I know that > > they are allowed, but aren't they obsolete? > > We heavily use them in Eclipse :-) > And I saw that other tests use them, so I thought it would make a > 'syntax' test more complete. In that case, that's also a good idea. > 2010-12-06 Marc Khouzam > > * gdb.mi/mi-general.exp: New file. > +# No need to actually start the inferior as the tests below only verify MI syntax. > +# What we do instead is see that the parsing works, and passes the MI command > +# further down to GDB, which will then fail because we didn't start the inferior. > +# We wouldn't make it that far if the MI syntax parsing failed Thanks a lot for writing comments - I think they are the best feature of any language and always find them very helpful. Just watch out for line length, which should not exceed 78 characters. Also, a period at the end of the last sentence is missing. > + # If we get to the breakpoint error, it means the -thread-group was parsed properly Same here... and later on as well. > + setup_xfail *-*-* > + mi_gdb_test "25-break-insert --thread-group XYZ main" \ > + "25\\^error,msg=\"Invalid thread group id\"" \ > + "Invalid --thread-group flag which does not start with an i" > + > + setup_xfail *-*-* > + mi_gdb_test "36-break-insert --thread-group i1 --thread-group i2 main" \ > + "36\\^error,msg=\"Duplicate '--thread-group' option\n\"" \ > + "Duplicate --thread-group flag" So, as discussed above, let's discard these in favor of opening new PRs. Thanks again for doing this, -- Joel