From: Hui Zhu <hui_zhu@mentor.com>
To: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
Cc: <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] testsuite tfind.exp: If current target don't support trace, try gdbserver.
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:27:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F747F34.8090208@mentor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4F7478EB.7060709@redhat.com>
On 03/29/12 22:59, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 03/29/2012 03:43 PM, Hui Zhu wrote:
>
>> That is back to the old question I ask for, right? :)
>>
>> Why the way try to make the trace function of GDB more easy be tested is not you want.
>
>>
>
>> And this way didn't affect current test.
>
>
> We're going in circles. I already explained why. But let me try one last time.
> We spawn the testsuite against a given target. It's wrong to run _some_ tests
> against _yet another_ target if not that first one. The gdb.server/ tests are
> special, and most scheduled for removal, exactly due to this issue.
>
> The trace function of GDB is not special compared to any other feature not
> supported by the native debugger. If you spawn a test run to test the native
> debugger, that's all that should be tested, with the features it doesn't support
> skipped. If you spawn a test run to test the sim, that's all that should be
> tested, with the features it doesn't support skipped. If you spawn a test run
> to test a remote qemu, that's all that should be tested, with the features
> it doesn't support skipped. If you spawn a test run to test a gdbserver, that's
> all that should be tested, with the features it doesn't support skipped.
>
> People should already be testing routinely against both the native
> target, and gdbserver.
>
> So the benefits of leaving the test run to test the target that it is meant
> to test should be obvious. So, no, I'll strongly object to such patches.
>
> Another example, imagine if native debugging already supported tracing, but then
> some patch inadvertently broke that, but then the test harness spawns gdbserver
> when the native target says "sorry I can't to tracing", and the test runs
> against gdbserver instead. You'd be masking the bug...
>
> If you want to make things easier, make it simpler to run the testsuite
> against the just built gdbserver, without having to install the
> native-gdbserver.exp (and friends) board files elsewhere, for example, with
> a new makefile target ('make check-gdbserver' or some such), that points SITE
> at an site.exp in the GDB source tree, that picks up the board
> files under src/gdb/testsuite/boards.
>
OK. Thanks for your clear mail. I got it.
Best,
Hui
prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-03-29 15:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-03-29 9:18 Hui Zhu
2012-03-29 9:24 ` Pedro Alves
2012-03-29 9:29 ` Hui Zhu
2012-03-29 9:46 ` Pedro Alves
2012-03-29 14:02 ` Hui Zhu
2012-03-29 14:13 ` Pedro Alves
2012-03-29 14:23 ` Hui Zhu
2012-03-29 14:26 ` Pedro Alves
2012-03-29 14:39 ` Hui Zhu
2012-03-29 14:40 ` Pedro Alves
2012-03-29 14:43 ` Hui Zhu
2012-03-29 15:00 ` Pedro Alves
2012-03-29 15:27 ` Hui Zhu [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4F747F34.8090208@mentor.com \
--to=hui_zhu@mentor.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=palves@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox