From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 37221 invoked by alias); 15 Aug 2019 14:48:38 -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 37132 invoked by uid 89); 15 Aug 2019 14:48:31 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=HX-Languages-Length:1063, HContent-Transfer-Encoding:8bit X-HELO: simark.ca Received: from simark.ca (HELO simark.ca) (158.69.221.121) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 14:48:29 +0000 Received: from [192.168.0.129] (unknown [24.48.76.173]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 571BF1EAAE; Thu, 15 Aug 2019 10:48:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [patch, testsuite] Disable dw2-dir-file-name.exp on remote and/or Windows host To: Sandra Loosemore , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" References: <9bb4446e-8a94-496d-ab8c-6d1197ac0728@codesourcery.com> <18b00c50-2cc0-b327-a06b-25df81b2f70b@simark.ca> <28ebe7e6-7001-96f2-6926-a52edbff8148@codesourcery.com> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: <2703c95f-a5e8-aedd-78fe-183982be9ec2@simark.ca> Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 14:48:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <28ebe7e6-7001-96f2-6926-a52edbff8148@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SW-Source: 2019-08/txt/msg00323.txt.bz2 On 2019-08-15 10:37 a.m., Sandra Loosemore wrote: > > I did consider that, but the existing previous bit in that file is just > > # This test can only be run on targets which support DWARF-2 and use gas. > if {![dwarf2_support]} { >     return 0 > } > > (which also appears in almost all the other gdb.dwarf2/*.exp files) so I thought it would be locally consistent to just return quietly.  Is the policy to use "untested" for host issues but not target properties, maybe?  I'll do whatever conforms to recommended practice here, of course. Personally, any time a test is skipped for whatever reason, I'd like to see some "UNTESTED" or "UNSUPPORTED" in the .sum file, to at least know the test existed and was skipped (along with the reason), rather than just it being omitted. I don't know if we have an "official" recommended practice here, this is just my opinion. The patch LGTM in both cases, so I'll let you choose :). Simon