Re: [PATCH 2/2] Remove pass in skip_unwinder_tests

[Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 17:40:55 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote:
> Nothing actually FAILed here.  We have lots of precedent for "supports-foo" or
> "try this" style functions that issue no FAIL.

There are cases which one can be sure they never can fail.  But otherwise
I find it as a testsuitea bug.


> It is expected that
> some systems won't have the unwinder hooks.  In the absurd, issuing a FAIL for
> these cases would be like issuing FAILs when tests are skipped because
> a [istarget "foobar-*-*"] returns false.

If the system does not have unwinder hook it will XFAIL.  XFAIL is not even
displayed on screen during interactive run.

If it even FAILs it is a GDB testsuite problem one should fix.

In summary I find better:

-PASS: gdb.java/jnpe.exp: check for unwinder hook
+FAIL: gdb.java/jnpe.exp: check for unwinder hook

or:

-XFAIL: gdb.java/jnpe.exp: check for unwinder hook
+FAIL: gdb.java/jnpe.exp: check for unwinder hook

I find worse to get in diffs just:

+FAIL: gdb.java/jnpe.exp: check for unwinder hook

Sure the testsuite has much more serious problems than this one, but when we
already discuss it it would be nice to get some consensus and write it to:
	http://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/GDBTestcaseCookbook


Thanks,
Jan