From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21359 invoked by alias); 24 Aug 2012 16:19:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 21343 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Aug 2012 16:19:25 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 16:19:12 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q7OGJBaP015995 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 24 Aug 2012 12:19:11 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-37.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.37]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q7OGJ7xP002111 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 24 Aug 2012 12:19:09 -0400 Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 16:19:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Pedro Alves Cc: Yao Qi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Remove pass in skip_unwinder_tests Message-ID: <20120824161854.GA10953@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <877gt1zbr5.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <1345715389-20955-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <1345715389-20955-2-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <20120824133738.GB5219@host2.jankratochvil.net> <5037A087.1090703@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5037A087.1090703@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2012-08/txt/msg00738.txt.bz2 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