From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9604 invoked by alias); 2 Nov 2010 18:04:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 9594 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Nov 2010 18:04:28 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com) (65.115.85.69) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 18:04:24 +0000 Received: from mailhost3.vmware.com (mailhost3.vmware.com [10.16.27.45]) by smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1A2D13437; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 11:04:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from msnyder-server.eng.vmware.com (promd-2s-dhcp138.eng.vmware.com [10.20.124.138]) by mailhost3.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5190CD962; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 11:04:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4CD052A4.8040802@vmware.com> Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 18:04:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20101027) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker CC: Nathan Froyd , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] skip break-entry.exp when using a stub References: <1288380040-22077-1-git-send-email-froydnj@codesourcery.com> <20101102175755.GA2492@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20101102175755.GA2492@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: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-11/txt/msg00030.txt.bz2 Joel Brobecker wrote: >> -Nathan >> >> * gdb.base/break-entry.exp: Skip if using a stub. > > I am not sure about one detail: > >> +# If we're using a stub, we'll already be stopped at the entry point >> +# when we connect. Don't bother trying to work around this in the >> +# testing below. >> + >> +if [target_info exists use_gdb_stub] { >> + untested ${testfile}.exp >> + return >> +} > > I am not sure that the use of "untested" is correct, here. Looking > at the dejagnu documentation: > > UNTESTED > A test was not run. This is a placeholder, used when there is no > real test case yet. > > untested "string" > Declares a test was not run. untested writes in the log file > a message beginning with `UNTESTED', appending the argument > string. For example, you might use this in a dummy test whose > only role is to record that a test does not yet exist for some > feature. > > Perhaps we just ought to `return' directly. What do others think? > Yes, that's what I'd do.