From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id int0MekroWHoNgAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2021 13:48:09 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id B976B1F0CF; Fri, 26 Nov 2021 13:48:09 -0500 (EST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A,RDNS_DYNAMIC autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C9201F0CD for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2021 13:48:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73FCA3857C5E for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2021 18:48:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A444A3858D39 for ; Fri, 26 Nov 2021 18:47:58 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org A444A3858D39 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark.ca Received: from [172.16.0.95] (192-222-180-24.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.180.24]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 37E011ECEB; Fri, 26 Nov 2021 13:47:58 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] [gdb/testsuite] Add gdb.base/include-main.exp To: Tom de Vries , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20211126094852.32283-1-tdevries@suse.de> <1e731166-3636-e537-b063-d4b1deb92645@suse.de> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: <26a88ace-dd10-4051-43e5-db9e4308dc1d@simark.ca> Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2021 13:47:57 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1e731166-3636-e537-b063-d4b1deb92645@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: tl Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Tom Tromey Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" >> I'm not a fan of having a file with the generic name "main.c" there. > > Could you explain why not? > > I don't understand why we'd need to duplicate a file that can easily be > reused. It even helps one to recognize quickly (once you known the > contents of the file) that the test-case that is being investigated does > not require a specific executable, just based on the fact it uses "main.c". I usually don't like multiple test cases re-using the same source file, that makes it more complicated to modify it (must make sure to not change the behavior of the the other tests). But the case of an empty program is simple enough, and your reasoning makes sense, so I'm ok with that. Simon