Re: [RFA]: testsuite/gdb.base/a2-bin.exp: Consider `needs_status_wrapper' target_info

[Fernando Nasser <fnasser@redhat.com>]

Daniel's observation is valid in general, i.e., if we can't test
something we must say "unsupported" (BTW, the vxworks version of
this test uses it wrong -- it seems it should be fail in that case).

W.r.t. this specific test though Corinna is right: the goal of the
test is to see if the program returns the "Usage" message when called
with no arguments.  If the return code was the only thing tested 
we would say "unsupported".  (We cant say "1/2 unsupported",
which could be the more exact description :-)

Check it in please Corinna.
Thanks for the fix.

Fernando

P.S.: And thanks to Daniel for reviewing and watching over the details.



Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 02:54:40PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at 08:25:07PM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > 2001-12-05  Corinna Vinschen  <vinschen@redhat.com>
> > >
> > >     * gdb.base/a2-bin.exp: Pass first test even if the return
> > >     code is 0 if target_info `needs_status_wrapper' exists.
> >
> > Please don't turn this into a PASS; it didn't really test anything as I
> > read it.  "unsupported" is probably the appropriate return code.
> 
> I don't think so.  The test tests that the application returns
> it's usage so it has tested that the application got it's argc
> correctly.  That's what the test is for, right?  It's just an
> _additional_ test that the return code is 1.  It's not GDB's
> fault that the target can't return the return code correctly.
> 
> Corinna

-- 
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat Canada Ltd.                     E-Mail:  fnasser@redhat.com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario   M4P 2C9