From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 802 invoked by alias); 26 Apr 2012 14:34:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 715 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Apr 2012 14:34:31 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL 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, 26 Apr 2012 14:34:19 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF0921C619B; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:34:18 -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 8-IfgMhWIOyM; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:34:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 787511C6094; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 10:34:18 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 0E446145616; Thu, 26 Apr 2012 07:33:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 14:42:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Tom Tromey Cc: Pedro Alves , "Maciej W. Rozycki" , Daniel Jacobowitz , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Richard Sandiford Subject: Re: gdb_test_multiple and empty $message Message-ID: <20120426143356.GM10958@adacore.com> References: <4F916F9E.6040209@redhat.com> <4F99491E.8050605@redhat.com> <87y5pi8tnm.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87y5pi8tnm.fsf@fleche.redhat.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: 2012-04/txt/msg00910.txt.bz2 > Pedro> My impression gdb_test without a message string is used at places > Pedro> we're sending some commands that just prepare the real test. > Pedro> It's a bit arguable whether we should do that, but there you go. > Pedro> But I think that hiding an internal fail in such preparation > Pedro> steps, which are never ever expected to fail (otherwise you'd > Pedro> pass down a message string to begin with) would be actively > Pedro> harmful, and make it harder to grok and debug testsuite results. > > Yeah, I agree. Same here. -- Joel