From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27232 invoked by alias); 14 Sep 2012 21:39:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 27224 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Sep 2012 21:39:57 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mms2.broadcom.com (HELO mms2.broadcom.com) (216.31.210.18) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 21:39:45 +0000 Received: from [10.9.200.133] by mms2.broadcom.com with ESMTP (Broadcom SMTP Relay (Email Firewall v6.5)); Fri, 14 Sep 2012 14:38:15 -0700 X-Server-Uuid: 4500596E-606A-40F9-852D-14843D8201B2 Received: from mail-irva-13.broadcom.com (10.11.16.103) by IRVEXCHHUB02.corp.ad.broadcom.com (10.9.200.133) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.2.247.2; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 14:38:59 -0700 Received: from [10.177.252.64] (unknown [10.177.252.64]) by mail-irva-13.broadcom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA5109F9F5; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 14:39:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5053A419.1090009@broadcom.com> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 21:39:00 -0000 From: "Andrew Burgess" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120824 Thunderbird/15.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Tom Tromey" cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , "Jan Kratochvil" Subject: Re: PATCH: error reading variable: value has been optimized out References: <50376F3B.1080407@broadcom.com> <20120826171840.GA21205@host2.jankratochvil.net> <504092C0.2000602@broadcom.com> <87wqzz5eug.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <5051D2A7.2000009@broadcom.com> <87r4q4zav8.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <87r4q4zav8.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2012-09/txt/msg00294.txt.bz2 On 14/09/2012 8:02 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Burgess 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