From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 38869 invoked by alias); 13 Feb 2020 15:02:40 -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 38798 invoked by uid 89); 13 Feb 2020 15:02:40 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-12.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=HX-Languages-Length:1798 X-HELO: mx2.suse.de Received: from mx2.suse.de (HELO mx2.suse.de) (195.135.220.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 15:02:38 +0000 Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91453B07D; Thu, 13 Feb 2020 15:02:36 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH][gdb/testsuite] Ignore pass/fail/unsupported in gdb-caching-proc.exp To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Simon Marchi References: <20200213105754.GA22520@delia> <87imkapngd.fsf@tromey.com> From: Tom de Vries Message-ID: <2319b744-2902-9c09-2448-450e40347c04@suse.de> Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 15:02:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.4.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87imkapngd.fsf@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2020-02/txt/msg00513.txt.bz2 On 13-02-2020 15:32, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Tom" == Tom de Vries writes: > > Tom> 2020-02-13 Tom de Vries > > Tom> * gdb.base/gdb-caching-proc.exp (ignore_pass, ignore_fail) > Tom> (ignore_unsupported): New proc. > Tom> (test_proc): Temporarily rename pass/fail/ignore to > Tom> ignore_{pass,fail,ignore} in order to ignore PASS/FAIL/IGNORE messages > Tom> from the tested procs. > > Can we just require that caching proc bodies not invoke tests? > We could, I don't have preference one way or the other. If I remove all the fail calls from gnat_runtime_has_debug_info, we still get these PASSes from gdb_compile_ada: ... PASS: gdb.base/gdb-caching-proc.exp: compilation gnat_debug_info_test.adb PASS: gdb.base/gdb-caching-proc.exp: compilation gnat_debug_info_test.adb PASS: gdb.base/gdb-caching-proc.exp: compilation gnat_debug_info_test.adb PASS: gdb.base/gdb-caching-proc.exp: compilation gnat_debug_info_test.adb PASS: gdb.base/gdb-caching-proc.exp: compilation gnat_debug_info_test.adb PASS: gdb.base/gdb-caching-proc.exp: compilation gnat_debug_info_test.adb PASS: gdb.base/gdb-caching-proc.exp: compilation gnat_debug_info_test.adb PASS: gdb.base/gdb-caching-proc.exp: compilation gnat_debug_info_test.adb PASS: gdb.base/gdb-caching-proc.exp: compilation gnat_debug_info_test.adb PASS: gdb.base/gdb-caching-proc.exp: compilation gnat_debug_info_test.adb PASS: gdb.base/gdb-caching-proc.exp: compilation gnat_debug_info_test.adb PASS: gdb.base/gdb-caching-proc.exp: gnat_runtime_has_debug_info consistency ... But we can factor that out, I've already done that once here ( https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2019-10/msg01109.html ). Simon, WDYT? Thanks, - Tom