Re: PATCH: error reading variable: value has been optimized out

["Andrew Burgess" <aburgess@broadcom.com>]

On 14/09/2012 8:02 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Burgess <aburgess@broadcom.com> writes:
>
> Tom> If it is just a theoretical problem I think we can just declare it
> Tom> unsupported; and, if we do see it, try reporting it as a compiler bug
> Tom> first.  After all, the compiler could just emit an empty piece instead.
>
> Andrew> I'm happy to mark these tests as unsupported.  As the tests (#2
> Andrew> -> #4) are pretty much zero cost given that I'm adding test #1
> Andrew> anyway I'd like to leave them in.  I've created a new patch, the
> Andrew> only change is that test #3 and #4 now report unsupported (with
> Andrew> comment), and test #2 reports pass, with a comment to explain
> Andrew> the reasoning.
>
> Andrew> +	# If we ever fix gdb so this passes we should delete the
> Andrew> +	# unsupported case below.
> Andrew> +	xpass $test
>
> Andrew> +	unsupported $test
>
> I think these tests should 'pass' if they generate the correct output,
> and 'kfail' otherwise.

But if they kfail then they need a defect ID, it seems rather pointless 
to raise a defect for unsupported behaviour we have no intention to fix.

Surely xpass is the right choice.  If the test ever does pass I hope the 
unexpected pass result will draw attention to the test so the 
"unsupported" (or kfail) can be removed.  If it was just a pass then 
there's a chance the test could be fixed then regress and we'd never 
notice as the unsupported (or kfail) would never have been removed.

Cheers,
Andrew