From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-66702-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 12538 invoked by alias); 11 Sep 2009 00:30:27 -0000
Received: (qmail 12528 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Sep 2009 00:30:26 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com) (65.115.85.73)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 Sep 2009 00:30:22 +0000
Received: from mailhost3.vmware.com (mailhost3.vmware.com [10.16.27.45]) 	by smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E3CF34018; 	Thu, 10 Sep 2009 17:30:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.94.141] (msnyder-server.eng.vmware.com [10.20.94.141]) 	by mailhost3.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31132CD96B; 	Thu, 10 Sep 2009 17:30:14 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4AA999A3.7090206@vmware.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2009 00:30:00 -0000
From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20080411)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
CC: Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com>,   gdb-patches ml <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [RFA] Make the prec support signal better[0/4]
References: <daef60380909090628x23285aaco708240d00db32e3d@mail.gmail.com> <4AA95648.10605@vmware.com> <20090910232952.GP20694@adacore.com>
In-Reply-To: <20090910232952.GP20694@adacore.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2009-09/txt/msg00297.txt.bz2

Joel Brobecker wrote:
>> Attached is a test case for it -- it will have a number of
>> XFAILS without this patch, which will become PASSES with the patch.
> 
> I looked at the testcase, and noticed a couple of things:
> 
>> #   Copyright 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2007, 2008, 2009
> 
> I was surprised by the copyright years, but I then read the contents
> of the testcase that mentions alpha-osf3.  That's when I realized
> that this file is inspired by sigall.exp... I supposed that this
> was the right thing to do, although it probably does not matter
> because I believe that these headers are actually not legally
> significant.

Dumb mistake -- correct diagnosis.  I'll fix the (C) date.

>> if [target_info exists gdb,nosignals] {
>>     verbose "Skipping sigall-reverse.exp because of nosignals."
>>     continue
>> }
> 
> I wonder why we do a continue here, whereas we do a return elsewhere:
> 
>> if ![target_info exists gdb,can_reverse] {
>>     return
>> }
> 
> I wish we had a cookbook for writing testcases, I always forget what
> we're supposed to do :-(. Anyone knows if this is significant?

I totally have no clue what the difference is.
But I'll change it to be locally consistent.

>> 	send_gdb "continue\n"
>> 	if { $thissig == "IO" } {
>> 	    setup_xfail "i*86-pc-linuxoldld-gnu" "i*86-pc-linuxaout-gnu"
>> 	}
>> 	gdb_expect {
> [...]
> 
> IMO, the send_gdb/gdb_expect sequences in this script should be converted
> to using test_gdb_multiple. I'd rather we avoid send_gdb/gdb_expect
> if we can.

Sigh.  Let me get back to you on that...