Re: [RFA]: File-I/O patch, testsuite

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>]

> On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 06:51:05PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
>> >However, this tests are currently running always, regardless if the
>> >target implements this functionality or not.  I'm not quite sure
>> >about the best way to skip these tests for those targets...
> 
>> 
>> I was going to suggest:
>> 
> 
>> ># test only on a remote target board
>> >if {! [is_remote target]} {
>> >    return
>> >}
> 
> 
> Yeah, we could add this.  Sounds about right.

but I think:

if [target_info exists gdb,noinferiorio] {
     verbose "Skipping interrupt.exp because of noinferiorio."
     return
}

is more correct.  It's the lack of the I/O feature, and not the 
remoteness that determines if the test should run.

>> but it doesn't hurt to have this run native (should work?).
> 
> 
> It doesn't make any sense, though. :-)

It would make maintenance easier.  The more mainstream the test, the 
more likely it is to be maintained.  CF remote.exp which gets little 
attention (suffering constant bit rot) because it is only run on remote 
targets :-(

>> I don't understand why:
>> 
>> +catch "system \"chmod -f +w dir2.fileio.test\""
>> +catch "system \"rm -rf *.fileio.test\""
>> 
>> appears twice.
> 
> 
> Paranoid mode.  The catches removes all files produced by the fileio tests
> of a previous testsuite run and it does so at the end to not let them
> hanging around when the test finishes.  The test itself needs to have
> a clean start, otherwise it produces a couple of annoying FAILs.

Ah, ok.

Andrew