From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6282 invoked by alias); 5 Mar 2002 02:27:18 -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 6030 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2002 02:27:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.112.135.44) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 5 Mar 2002 02:27:09 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 678EF3E65; Mon, 4 Mar 2002 19:39:40 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3C8413CB.5080100@cygnus.com> Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 18:27:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:0.9.8) Gecko/20020210 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, jimb@redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: properly skip interrupts.exp References: <200203020545.g225jaq20874@duracef.shout.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-03/txt/msg00039.txt.bz2 > I have doubts about this. It seems plausible to me that "nointerrupts" > is a property of the host, not the target. gdb.base/interrupt.exp > seems very host oriented to me. I think it is a target vector property. It is just that few targets (beyond native) think to implement the functionality described by interrupt.exp. Things get confusing when you find that certain target interfaces don't work on certain hosts. > But dejagnu 1.4.2 has just two boards that set this: > > baseboards.exp/dos.exp > baseboards.exp/m68hc11-sim.exp > > I don't really know whether host or target is correct, and I don't > know what will happen with a switch. Sigh. > > I'm inclined to rip out "nointerrupts", rip out the years of > "setup_xfail" crud, and let the FAILs fall where they may. > But not with the 5.2 branch and 5.2 release imminent. Not sure about nointerrupts, pulling the setup_xfail cruft sounds positive. enjoy, Andrew