From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24943 invoked by alias); 29 Mar 2012 14:40:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 24857 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Mar 2012 14:40:06 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:39:53 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2TEdoQF018525 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:39:50 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2TEdnVP026877; Thu, 29 Mar 2012 10:39:49 -0400 Message-ID: <4F747435.1040805@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:40:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120316 Thunderbird/11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hui Zhu CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] testsuite tfind.exp: If current target don't support trace, try gdbserver. References: <4F7428BD.30408@mentor.com> <4F742A2A.9060500@redhat.com> <4F742B75.3000408@mentor.com> <4F742F7D.1070602@redhat.com> <4F746B2A.6000302@mentor.com> <4F746DF3.5040500@redhat.com> <4F747005.8070109@mentor.com> <4F7470E7.7030001@redhat.com> <4F7473ED.6070007@mentor.com> In-Reply-To: <4F7473ED.6070007@mentor.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2012-03/txt/msg00997.txt.bz2 On 03/29/2012 03:38 PM, Hui Zhu wrote: > On 03/29/12 22:25, Pedro Alves wrote: >> Let me put this another way. If when testing against a remote target, we find >> ourselves testing a feature that happens to not be supported by the currently connected >> remote target, but may be supported by the native target, do you think a test should go >> through contortions to run against the native target? (the answer is no). >> > > Yes, I know you worry about it and I agree with it. So I add TRACE_TRY_GDBSERVER. > > For the test that against a remote target or other normal way, because TRACE_TRY_GDBSERVER is not set. Test will not auto try target remote when current target didn't support trace. > > When we want test the function inside the GDB, we can set TRACE_TRY_GDBSERVER, then test will use gdbserver if need. Sorry, no, we don't want to add this. Just run the testsuite against gdbserver if that's what you want to test. -- Pedro Alves