From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 109923 invoked by alias); 26 Feb 2015 11:41:08 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 109914 invoked by uid 89); 26 Feb 2015 11:41:07 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:41:06 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t1QBf5o9022318 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 06:41:05 -0500 Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net ([10.40.204.17]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t1QBf1HB007286 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 26 Feb 2015 06:41:04 -0500 Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 11:41:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Pedro Alves Cc: Martin Sebor , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patchv2] PR gdb/17968 - [ppc64] SEGV in ppc64_elf_get_synthetic_symtab reading a separate debug file Message-ID: <20150226114101.GA6813@host1.jankratochvil.net> References: <54E39F4C.6050607@redhat.com> <54E3D152.6020804@redhat.com> <20150225210404.GA29761@host1.jankratochvil.net> <54EF0476.7000605@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <54EF0476.7000605@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-02/txt/msg00749.txt.bz2 On Thu, 26 Feb 2015 12:33:10 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: > On 02/25/2015 09:04 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > > > +# This test won't work properly if system debuginfo is installed. > > +gdb_test_no_output "set debug-file-directory" "" > > I suspect this "" here would be for "no expected output", but > given this is gdb_test_no_output, it actually means the test has > no associated message. I think you want to remove that. I do not care if "" gets removed or not but it was intentional this way. (1) Some people prefer no gdb.sum line for testcases which really should never FAIL and/or which are not a subject of the testfile. I am do not belong between these people (if I care at all), though. (2) Here I used it as the only other testcase will be often UNTESTED (due to no ppc64 target support compiled in) - and it looks better if there is only one UNTESTED result than one PASS + one UNTESTED which may give a false feeling something got tested - which it was not. > Otherwise this (patch and test) looks good to me. So just if "" should be there or not. Jan