Re: [patch, testsuite] Disable dw2-dir-file-name.exp on remote and/or Windows host

[Sandra Loosemore <sandra@codesourcery.com>]

On 8/14/19 9:12 PM, Simon Marchi wrote:
> On 2019-08-13 6:29 p.m., Sandra Loosemore wrote:
>> This is yet another testsuite fix to clean up results on remote Windows
>> host.
>>
>> For this testcase, I did consider trying to fix it rather than just
>> disabling it for remote host, but it looked like it was going to be an
>> awful lot of work and trial-and-error (it has almost no comments to
>> explain what it is trying to test, or how it is getting there).  I think
>> it is at least an incremental improvement to document that it isn't
>> expected to work as-is on remote host.  And disabling it does get rid of
>> 33 completely bogus FAILs.  :-P
>>
>> OK?
>>
>> -Sandra
>>
> 
>> +# This test has hard-wired assumptions that host and build filenames are
>> +# the same, and assumes POSIX pathname syntax.
>> +if { [is_remote host] || [ishost *-*-mingw*] } {
>> +    return 0
>> +}
>> +
> 
> Should we use "untested" or "unsupported" before returning, to have at least a status
> in the logs?  The definition of "unsupported" seems appropriate for this case:
> 
>      Declares that a test case depends on some facility that does not exist in the
>      testing environment.
> 
> From: https://www.gnu.org/software/dejagnu/manual/unsupported-procedure.html
> 
> Simon
> 

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.

-Sandra