From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30696 invoked by alias); 21 Jan 2002 16:12:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 30663 invoked from network); 21 Jan 2002 16:12:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.230.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Jan 2002 16:12:08 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (rtl.sfbay.redhat.com [205.180.230.21]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id IAA05539 for ; Mon, 21 Jan 2002 08:12:07 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3C4C3DBB.DC92B06C@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 08:12:00 -0000 From: Fernando Nasser Organization: Red Hat Canada X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.9-13 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gdb-patches Subject: Re: [RFA]: testsuite/gdb.base/a2-bin.exp: Consider `needs_status_wrapper' target_info References: <20011205202507.E29719@cygbert.vinschen.de> <20011205145440.A16409@nevyn.them.org> <20011205211708.I29719@cygbert.vinschen.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00642.txt.bz2 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 > > > > > > * 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