From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18762 invoked by alias); 24 Apr 2013 14:35:32 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 18753 invoked by uid 89); 24 Apr 2013 14:35:32 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-8.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 14:35:30 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r3OEZTi9008200 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 10:35:29 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r3OEZRFG022831; Wed, 24 Apr 2013 10:35:28 -0400 Message-ID: <5177EDAF.6030107@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 18:24:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130311 Thunderbird/17.0.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Keith Seitz CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org ml" Subject: Re: [RFA/testsuite] Cleanup pending breakpoints References: <517716B5.7050406@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <517716B5.7050406@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-04/txt/msg00740.txt.bz2 On 04/24/2013 12:18 AM, Keith Seitz wrote: > Hi, > > Some types of pending breakpoints are commonly set by using gdb_test_multiple to respond to the "Make breakpoint pending?" question. This patch adds support for several breakpoint types to gdb_breakpoint so that the standard machinery can be used instead. > > I've also taken this opportunity to update the neglected documentation for gdb_breakpoint. AFAICT, "passfail" just appeared out of nowhere, and it has never been implemented/documented. Whenever you feel compelled to say "also" in a patch description, consider splitting the patch in two. ;-) Updating the documentation part could go first, and would be clearly an improvement. Extending the interface could go afterwards, and that patch would then actually be clearer. > > Comments/questions? I wonder whether "allow-pending" is the right option for the "pending" tests. As in, "allow" != "require". I wonder whether we're losing test coverage in those cases? -- Pedro Alves