From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 895 invoked by alias); 7 Nov 2011 14:39:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 885 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Nov 2011 14:39:50 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 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; Mon, 07 Nov 2011 14:39:35 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E3CD2BB115; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 09:39:35 -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 PjSsmFl9Sh85; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 09:39:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14CBF2BAFF4; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 09:39:34 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7BFD0145615; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 09:39:29 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 14:39:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Yao Qi Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] Run tests in gdb.reverse Message-ID: <20111107143929.GA14508@adacore.com> References: <4EB69AE6.4010301@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4EB69AE6.4010301@codesourcery.com> 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: 2011-11/txt/msg00147.txt.bz2 > This patch is to convert variable checking in each reverse test case to > a proc return value checking, so that gdb.reverse tests will be run on > targets that support reverse debugging. I haven't looked at the patch too closely, but I think that this is a good idea. The part that I am worried about is perhaps the fact that there might have been a reason for providing a manual control for running these testcases. If that's the case, then we'll probably want to add a control for forcing these testcase to be disabled. -- Joel