From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10617 invoked by alias); 8 May 2012 08:39:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 10431 invoked by uid 22791); 8 May 2012 08:39:43 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 08 May 2012 08:39:29 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.93]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1SRfxB-0006wD-4x from Yao_Qi@mentor.com for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Tue, 08 May 2012 01:39:29 -0700 Received: from SVR-ORW-FEM-04.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.97.41]) by svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 8 May 2012 01:39:28 -0700 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-04.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.97.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.289.1; Tue, 8 May 2012 01:39:28 -0700 Message-ID: <4FA8DBB9.50505@codesourcery.com> Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 08:39:00 -0000 From: Yao Qi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120412 Thunderbird/11.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hui Zhu CC: Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Add autoload-breakpoints [2/6] ReportAsync-test References: <4F8562B7.20305@mentor.com> <4F9B98E2.9050208@mentor.com> <4F9C17CD.3040901@codesourcery.com> <4FA8CA98.6010503@mentor.com> In-Reply-To: <4FA8CA98.6010503@mentor.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: 2012-05/txt/msg00217.txt.bz2 On 05/08/2012 03:26 PM, Hui Zhu wrote: >> Remote feature should be tested in remote target or board file. >> You are testing a remote feature GDB unconditionally, even in native >> gdb. It looks incorrect to me. >> > > This just a check for the this small gdbserver is OK. I don't think this test will work with board or something. > My point is this test case exercises some "undesired" features w.r.t. testsuite and config. I configure and build a native gdb, and type `make -k check' in gdb build dir. Then, I'll examine the FAILs in gdb.sum to see the status of native gdb, what does the FAILs, if any, in gdb.remote/reportasync-test.exp mean to me? It sounds like "I did a medical check-up to my eyes, but result tells me something wrong in my ears". However, I am not strongly against this test case. We have a sub-dir gdb.server under testsuite/, *.exp are run even when testing native gdb, but they are test cases to GDBserver, rather than GDB, AFAICS. When we see some FAILs in it, that means GDBserver has something wrong, at least ideally :) -- Yao (齐尧)