Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@polymtl.ca>
To: "Wiederhake, Tim" <tim.wiederhake@intel.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, palves@redhat.com, "Metzger,
	Markus T" <markus.t.metzger@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] python: Add tests for record Python bindings
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 17:47:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3329dcb31a407483586f0213e2966b15@polymtl.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9676A094AF46E14E8265E7A3F4CCE9AF90C979@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com>

On 2016-10-28 09:48, Wiederhake, Tim wrote:
> If you are recording using the "full" method and try to access the
> data from Python, you get a not-yet-implemented exception. All we can
> test in this case is that the recording method in the gdb.Record
> object is displayed properly, i.e. gdb.current_recording().method ==
> "full". I could rename py-record.exp to py-record-btrace.exp and add a
> py-record-full.exp with that exact test in it, but I don't see too
> much value in that. Your opinion?

I think that at least renaming it to py-record-btrace.exp as you 
suggested would be good, since it tests specifically btrace.  That will 
leave room for an eventual py-record.exp including more generic tests.


  reply	other threads:[~2016-10-28 17:47 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-10-27  6:29 [PATCH 0/7] Python bindings for btrace recordings Tim Wiederhake
2016-10-27  6:29 ` [PATCH 6/7] python: Add tests for record Python bindings Tim Wiederhake
2016-10-27 15:59   ` Simon Marchi
2016-10-28 13:49     ` Wiederhake, Tim
2016-10-28 17:47       ` Simon Marchi [this message]
2016-10-27  6:29 ` [PATCH 3/7] btrace: Use binary search to find instruction Tim Wiederhake
2016-10-27 14:28   ` Simon Marchi
2016-11-02 10:01     ` Wiederhake, Tim
2016-11-02 11:24       ` Simon Marchi
2016-10-27  6:29 ` [PATCH 1/7] btrace: Count gaps as one instruction explicitly Tim Wiederhake
2016-10-27  6:29 ` [PATCH 5/7] python: Implement btrace Python bindings for record history Tim Wiederhake
2016-10-27  6:29 ` [PATCH 2/7] btrace: Export btrace_decode_error function Tim Wiederhake
2016-10-27  6:29 ` [PATCH 4/7] python: Create Python bindings for record history Tim Wiederhake
2016-10-27 15:53   ` Simon Marchi
2016-10-28 14:12     ` Wiederhake, Tim
2016-10-27  6:29 ` [PATCH 7/7] Add documentation for new instruction record Python bindings Tim Wiederhake
2016-10-27 15:02   ` Eli Zaretskii
2016-10-27 16:10   ` Simon Marchi

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=3329dcb31a407483586f0213e2966b15@polymtl.ca \
    --to=simon.marchi@polymtl.ca \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
    --cc=markus.t.metzger@intel.com \
    --cc=palves@redhat.com \
    --cc=tim.wiederhake@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox