From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31469 invoked by alias); 24 Aug 2012 15:41:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 31454 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Aug 2012 15:41:17 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS 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; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 15:40:59 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q7OFevoG018169 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 24 Aug 2012 11:40:57 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q7OFetCn019401; Fri, 24 Aug 2012 11:40:56 -0400 Message-ID: <5037A087.1090703@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 15:41:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120717 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Kratochvil CC: Yao Qi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Remove pass in skip_unwinder_tests References: <877gt1zbr5.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <1345715389-20955-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <1345715389-20955-2-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <20120824133738.GB5219@host2.jankratochvil.net> In-Reply-To: <20120824133738.GB5219@host2.jankratochvil.net> 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: 2012-08/txt/msg00732.txt.bz2 On 08/24/2012 02:37 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 11:49:49 +0200, Yao Qi wrote: >> > As we discussed, proc skip_unwinder_tests should not generate any FAIL >> > or PASS in test summary, > During comparison across releases and testsuite modes it makes the diffs more > difficult to read: > > Running gdb/testsuite/gdb.java/jnpe.exp ... > PASS: gdb.java/jnpe.exp: compilation jnpe.java > -FAIL: gdb.java/jnpe.exp: check for unwinder hook > PASS: gdb.java/jnpe.exp: disable SIGSEGV for next-over-NPE > PASS: gdb.java/jnpe.exp: next over NPE > -PASS: gdb.java/jnpe.exp: continue to success for next-over-NPE > +FAIL: gdb.java/jnpe.exp: continue to success for next-over-NPE > > > Has the last testcase regressed because the check "check for unwinder hook" is > therefore no longer there? Does it PASS or FAIL now? etc. I disagree. Such cases will always happen. Tests are removed, changed and renamed all the time. Nothing actually FAILed here. We have lots of precedent for "supports-foo" or "try this" style functions that issue no FAIL. It is expected that some systems won't have the unwinder hooks. In the absurd, issuing a FAIL for these cases would be like issuing FAILs when tests are skipped because a [istarget "foobar-*-*"] returns false. -- Pedro Alves