From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 89107 invoked by alias); 28 Oct 2016 17:47:15 -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 89096 invoked by uid 89); 28 Oct 2016 17:47:14 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy= 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; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 17:47:12 +0000 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 33) id E9BD51E13C; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 13:47:10 -0400 (EDT) To: "Wiederhake, Tim" Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] python: Add tests for record Python bindings X-PHP-Originating-Script: 33:rcube.php MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 17:47:00 -0000 From: Simon Marchi Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, palves@redhat.com, "Metzger, Markus T" In-Reply-To: <9676A094AF46E14E8265E7A3F4CCE9AF90C979@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1477549711-2603-1-git-send-email-tim.wiederhake@intel.com> <1477549711-2603-7-git-send-email-tim.wiederhake@intel.com> <9676A094AF46E14E8265E7A3F4CCE9AF90C979@irsmsx105.ger.corp.intel.com> Message-ID: <3329dcb31a407483586f0213e2966b15@polymtl.ca> X-Sender: simon.marchi@polymtl.ca User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.2.2 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-10/txt/msg00819.txt.bz2 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.