From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5826 invoked by alias); 9 Aug 2011 15:50:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 5814 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Aug 2011 15:50:48 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 09 Aug 2011 15:50:35 +0000 Received: (qmail 19723 invoked from network); 9 Aug 2011 15:50:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.0.101?) (yao@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 9 Aug 2011 15:50:34 -0000 Message-ID: <4E41574E.4030702@codesourcery.com> Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 15:50:00 -0000 From: Yao Qi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110617 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Matthew Gretton-Dann CC: Mark Kettenis , "pedro@codesourcery.com" , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [patch] Skip kill-after-signal.exp if hw single-step is not supported References: <4E259815.8080001@codesourcery.com> <201107201605.43767.pedro@codesourcery.com> <201107232247.p6NMlwVx029216@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <4E414503.7080201@codesourcery.com> <4E415111.7020107@arm.com> In-Reply-To: <4E415111.7020107@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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: 2011-08/txt/msg00199.txt.bz2 On 08/09/2011 11:24 PM, Matthew Gretton-Dann wrote: > Would this be better if it followed the pattern of the > skip_hw_breakpoint_tests and skip_hw_watchpoint_tests family of > functions in gdb.exp? > > So I would rename the function to skip_hw_single_step_tests[1], and test > for the existence of gdb,no_hardware_watchpoints in the board info. > Personally, I don't like the procs' name skip_* in lib/gdb.exp. IMO, procs in lib/gdb.exp of this kind is to check a certain property in current env, and return the result. Leave the test case itself to determine whether to skip or run. "single_step_to_signal_handler_p" is not equivalent to "hardware single step", because some targets have hardware single step, but can't step into signal handler. The property interested here is "whether we can single step into a signal handler", instead of "whether target has hardware single step". I am not good at naming functions, so ideas on a better/clear name is welcome. -- Yao (齐尧)